From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry Finger Subject: Re: [RFC] Alternate WE-21 support (core API) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:43:54 -0500 Message-ID: <44FF411A.6010402@lwfinger.net> References: <20060830005655.GA8405@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <1157031138.16040.17.camel@ux156> <20060831135112.GA6097@jm.kir.nu> <1157032805.16040.21.camel@ux156> <20060906205538.GA29767@tuxdriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Berg , Jouni Malinen , jt@hpl.hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Javier Achirica , Simon Kelley , "James P. Ketrenos" , Zhu Yi , Pavel Roskin , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Jeroen Vreeken , Michael Wu , Denis Vlasenko , Michael Buesch Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.117]:30848 "EHLO mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932090AbWIFVoD (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:44:03 -0400 To: "John W. Linville" In-Reply-To: <20060906205538.GA29767@tuxdriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org John W. Linville wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:00:05PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:51 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: >> >>> I don't know about the others, but long/short retry limits have users >>> (e.g., Host AP driver) and these drivers are currently forced to use a >>> hack to do this without this cleanup. Furthermore, this part does not >>> add a new ioctl. >> It does, however, add new parameters and things that'd need to be >> translated in the compat layer later. Hence, even there, I'd prefer to >> add them directly into nl80211. However, the compat code for that >> shouldn't be that bad, so I can see that as a softer target :) But I >> don't want to see new ioctls for sure. > > OK, I think we all agree that there are good parts to Jean's WE-21 > patch. Below I've made an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff > (or to cut the baby in half)... > > Is this patch acceptable to the group? Does it make things better? > Or worse? Did I leave-out anything that should still go in? Did I > take too much? > > Let me know what you think...? > + * > + * The issue : wireless_send_event() is often called in interrupt context, > + * while the Netlink layer can never be called in interrupt context. > + * The fully formed RtNetlink events are queued, and then a tasklet is run > + * to feed those to Netlink. > + * The skb_queue is interrupt safe, and its lock is not held while calling > + * Netlink, so there is no possibility of dealock. ^^^^^^^ You might as well fix the typo now. Otherwise, it looks OK to me. I've been running the original patch for several days with no problems. I don't think you removed anything essential. Larry