Re: [PATCH] mac80211: make noack test available

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2234 bytes --]

On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 00:13 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Johannes Berg
> <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > There's this internal wifi_wme_noack_test variable that
> > we use to set the QoS control if set. For one, it is
> > unlikely that it is set. Secondly, if set it needs to
> > influence the IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK TX control flag,
> > and finally we should also be able to set it at all, so
> > make it available in debugfs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
> > ---
> >  net/mac80211/debugfs.c     |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h |    1 +
> >  net/mac80211/tx.c          |    5 ++++-
> >  net/mac80211/wme.c         |    2 +-
> >  4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- wireless-testing.orig/net/mac80211/tx.c     2009-05-12 21:44:01.000000000 +0200
> > +++ wireless-testing/net/mac80211/tx.c  2009-05-12 22:03:26.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -1087,7 +1087,10 @@ __ieee80211_tx_prepare(struct ieee80211_
> >                info->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK;
> >        } else {
> >                tx->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_UNICAST;
> > -               info->flags &= ~IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK;
> > +               if (unlikely(local->wifi_wme_noack_test))
> > +                       info->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK;
> > +               else
> > +                       info->flags &= ~IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK;
> >        }
> 
> While you are at it, why not clean up this code completely? 

Because I'm lazy.

> IMHO the
> unset-bit operations are useless, given that both TX_UNICAST and
> TX_CTL_NO_ACK are initialized to zero at the beginning of
> __ieee80211_tx_prepare. 

Probably. But it works, why change it :)

> This also makes it possible to set
> TX_CTL_NO_ACK in a TX handler, which is IMO much nicer (not to mention
> that it significantly simplifies the work needed to support Radiotap's
> TX flags once they land).

That seems to serve only you ;)

> (BTW should we implement the already-stable parts of TX flags now, or
> is it a better idea to wait till it is final?)

Wait until it's final please.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]