From:   Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3 1/2] mac80211: add hw 80211 encapsulation offloading support
In-Reply-To: <5647fa751aed450f09312c35f8d5becd47e26b66.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20190401131416.22646-1-john@phrozen.org> <20190401131416.22646-2-john@phrozen.org> <87k1gcpwgy.fsf@toke.dk> <5647fa751aed450f09312c35f8d5becd47e26b66.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Tue, 02 Apr 2019 15:28:13 +0200
Message-ID: <878swspmdu.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:

> 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.

Cool. Glad that we agree ;)

-Toke