Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:50840 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932633AbaEGLTM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2014 07:19:12 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hi2so4371000wib.0 for ; Wed, 07 May 2014 04:19:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1399460964.10517.12.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> References: <1397050174-26121-14-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1398849681-3606-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1399372915.4218.17.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1399385141.4218.37.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1399450061.5038.10.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1399455657.6800.4.camel@dubbel> <1399457760.6800.7.camel@dubbel> <1399460964.10517.12.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 13:19:11 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20140507_131925_907183_7284643D) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mac80211: implement multi-vif in-place reservations From: Michal Kazior To: Johannes Berg Cc: Luca Coelho , linux-wireless , Simon Wunderlich Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 7 May 2014 13:09, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 12:38 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > >> I was actually thinking of just providing the bare minimum to fulfill >> requirements for the CSA case: int foo(*hw, **vifs, n_vifs, *oldctx, >> *newctx, flags). >> >> Having an array of transactions passed through a single call seems >> more robust and cleaner. Naiive drivers might just iterate over each >> entry while more complex drivers might examine the whole request and >> detect chanctx swapping. > > Not sure what you mean by "detect chanctx swapping" - the flags would > indicate that anyway, no? In any case, I like this better than a more > general transaction API I think, it's easier for the driver > implementation and clearer as to what needs to be done/supported. You could submit a transaction sequence: - new chanctx2 - switch vif1 chanctx1->chanctx2 - switch vif2 chanctx1->chanctx2 - remove chanctx1 Driver could infer this is a channel switch and depending on it's capabilities/limitations perform some extra actions or just map it to internal commands 1:1. Michał