Re: [PATCH 0/7] Improvements to software scanning

[Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:08:36PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 16:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 17:47 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > 
> > > Johannes: I have a couple of comments/questions for you related to these
> > > patches.
> > > 
> > > First, in the patches I've added an offchan_tx_ok argument to the tx
> > > operations, but this seems a little awkward to me since it has to be
> > > propogated down through a fairly deep call stack. The alternative idea
> > > that occurred to me is to use a tx control flag, but that seems to be
> > > pretty crowded. Any thoughts?
> > 
> > Maybe you can bypass by using a flag in struct ieee80211_tx_data, so
> > only the first few functions in the call chain need the argument?
> > Otherwise, I guess adding a flag should be OK. I know it's crowded, but
> > if we really run out I guess we could move all the internal flags etc.
> > wholesale ...
> 
> Ok no that was wrong ... we can't do that because many flags need to
> survive queueing.

An ieee80211_tx_data flag would work for this case, though it doesn't
quite have the effect I was hoping for since it really only gets rid of
the argument internal to tx.c. I avoided most of the pain by leaving
ieee80211_tx_skb() unmodified, but it all still seems a bit ugly.

If you're okay with the way I've got things now I'll just stick with it.
I hate to gobble up valuable real estate in the tx control flags just to
satisfy my sense of aesthetics ;-)

Seth