Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-3545-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <25395d1cee68fcd6d19a6c7843afd48ad8448a82.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: iwlwifi RFC related to iwl_mvm_tx_reclaim
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>, linux-wireless
	 <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:14:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: <2839f687-88af-ecd8-c6cb-7bdaf1808496@candelatech.com>
References: <c9b0c01e-acac-9f15-730f-a0ba991a68dc@candelatech.com>
	 <9779efb62cec04926e3bb2575a8aecc8bbf0e7ff.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <2839f687-88af-ecd8-c6cb-7bdaf1808496@candelatech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 (3.50.3-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 06:13 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>=20
> If sta is NULL, we should still reclaim the frames?  If so the check earl=
ier in the code where
> it returns early if sta is NULL could be deleted, and add a null check do=
wn near the IS_ERR
> check?

If the sta is NULL something went pretty much horribly wrong, not sure
what we should be trying to do in that case. I guess you could argue for
reclaiming anyway, but question is how far you go and what that risks, I
don't really know.

johannes