Message-ID: <1359644664.8415.68.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130131_160420_711577_28826127)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Improvements to software scanning
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>,
	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:04:24 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1359503255-18270-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com>
References: <1359503255-18270-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

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 ...

> Second, I attempted to test these patches with iwlwifi (Centrino
> Advanced-N 6235) to verify that I didn't break anything for drivers with
> hw scanning. My standard test for this involves running iperf while
> triggering nearly continuous scans, but I'm seeing lots of problems
> running a tcp iperf test even with unpatched 3.8-rc4. iperf with udp
> does fine in either direction. I haven't had time to do any kind of
> debugging yet, but I thought you'd want to know.

Hm, ok, thanks.

johannes