Message-ID: <4F9A423B.102@qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20120427_085302_589348_6984E7E0)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:22:43 +0530
From: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>
CC: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <ath6kl-devel@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ath6kl: Complete failed tx packet in ath6kl_htc_tx_from_queue()
References: <1335452174-7093-1-git-send-email-vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com> <1335452174-7093-2-git-send-email-vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com> <4F999235.3060007@qca.qualcomm.com> <4F9A1C0F.2090303@qca.qualcomm.com> <4F9A3DEE.207@qca.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F9A3DEE.207@qca.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org


On Friday 27 April 2012 12:04 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 07:09 AM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
>
>>>>    	bus_req = ath6kl_sdio_alloc_busreq(ar_sdio);
>>>>
>>>> -	if (!bus_req)
>>>> +	if (!bus_req) {
>>>> +		ath6kl_err("Ran out of bus request buffer for tx\n");
>>>>    		return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about this one. There's a risk that this will spam the log.
>>> Should it be a debug message instead? Or should we have instead
>>> ath6kl_err_ratelimit()?
>>
>> This condition is very rare, I found it only through code review. I'm
>> pretty sure we don't hit this very often.
>
> I'm not worried how often it happens, I'm just worried that _when_ it
> happens the warning might make things worse. For example, I personally
> saw a case where flood of warnings prevented watchdog heartbeat from
> happening which caused the whole system to reboot. Without the warnings
> system would have worked just fine, just a bit more slowly.

Fair enough.

>
> Is it ok for you if I change the ath6kl_err() to WARN_ON_ONCE() (or
> WARN_ONCE() if you prefer to keep the warning message)? This should be a
> rare event anyway.

I'm fine with that, thanks.

Vasanth