Message-ID: <5647fa751aed450f09312c35f8d5becd47e26b66.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3 1/2] mac80211: add hw 80211 encapsulation offloading
 support
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>,
        John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        Shashidhar Lakkavalli <slakkavalli@datto.com>,
        Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date:   Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:44:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87k1gcpwgy.fsf@toke.dk> (sfid-20190402_115023_938695_D3135246)
References: <20190401131416.22646-1-john@phrozen.org>
         <20190401131416.22646-2-john@phrozen.org> <87k1gcpwgy.fsf@toke.dk>
         (sfid-20190402_115023_938695_D3135246)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 11:50 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

[snip, you really should try that sometimes ;-)]

> ieee80211_queue_skb() calls ieee80211_get_txq() which treats skb-
> datalike it contains an 802.11 header. That is probably not the
> intention here, is it?

Indeed, that makes no sense.

> I guess we could augment the TXQ stuctures to also handle 802.3 frames
> (and introduce ieee80211_queue_skb_8023())? Or would it be better to
> have a qdisc on 802.3-mode interfaces and push packets back to that? I
> guess we'd still benefit from per-station queueing of packets even if
> they are Ethernet frames, which would mean amending the TXQs would be
> better?

TXQs would be better, yes. We should do that.

johannes