Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:13:19 -0300
From: Werner Almesberger <werner@almesberger.net>
To: Alan Ott <alan@signal11.us>
Cc: Alexander Smirnov <alex.bluesman.smirnov@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-zigbee-devel <linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-zigbee-devel] [PATCH 1/6] mac802154: Immediately retry
 sending failed packets
Message-ID: <20130402231319.GD28141@ws>
References: <1364928481-1813-1-git-send-email-alan@signal11.us>
 <1364928481-1813-2-git-send-email-alan@signal11.us>
 <CAJmB2rCr5ds11+iN=W5GCKsUgdfb57uKg+mH4NY4CWw6EFCTbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <515B3F78.2020301@signal11.us>
 <515B4D79.40805@signal11.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <515B4D79.40805@signal11.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1015
Lines: 27

Alan Ott wrote:
> it's now my opinion that we should _not_ try to retransmit at
> all in mac802154/tx.c.

I think the currently blocking workqueue design is ugly and
quite contrary to how most the rest of the stack works. So
anything that kills it has my blessing :-)

I do wonder though why it was done like this in the first place.
Just for convenience ?

If we want to move towards an asynchronous interface, it could
exist in parallel with the current one. That way, drivers could
be migrated one by one.

Having said that, the errors you get there may not be failed
single transmissions on the air but some form of congestion in
the driver or a problem with the device. But I don't think
that's a valid reason for retrying the transmission at that
level.

- Werner
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/