From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A45A3B2A0 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:16:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail2.tohojo.dk EF49740A3A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1466190960; bh=Uv/8Q4rlZUrG3NzZfKQPYfYfmmJa5ibdzF6bufG6src=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UCJ1cCqABRJ7V14UrOdeH5XSNn7DG/iRQde+qH0fWXdS6SiuZKkUBz84D9z7zG/jl 5Hs0Kn+96zuWUR4ENKSErrQ8uGzdDUTkhbwz7VbVS01NJyJ2h7RusVMoP1CGGZUXXM YmNKpHYwy7hbSW/SwWqYp1gDRbFJtkKrpXKDTVKQ= Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 057A178C18A; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:15:59 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Tim Shepard Cc: Felix Fietkau , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org References: Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:15:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Tim Shepard's message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:45:01 -0400") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87h9cr4oep.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH 1/2] ath9k: use mac80211 intermediate software queues X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:16:02 -0000 Tim Shepard writes: > Hmm... if the renaming is going to go in mainline, I feel pretty > strongly it should go in *before* a patch to switch over to use the > intermediate queues. The whole point of the renaming was to make the > code that uses the intermediate queues much more understandable > (avoiding the unfortuante collision of "txq" meaning two different > things throughout the code). > > Once it is all done and everyone's done reading and trying to > understand this code, there's much less reason to do the renaming. > > Toke, how do you feel about this at this point? I'm fine with not renaming things for now. Been looking at the current code enough that it doesn't bother me. Oh, and you can hide most of the ieee80211_txq stuff behind macros, so it doesn't have to be all over the code. Makes the patch set smaller too... > I'm asking because I hope to have a new version of my patch soon > (fixing a bug in how it handles tid->hwq->pending_frames and > hq_max_pending[*] ), Cool. I started looking into what it will take to do a full conversion (getting rid of the old TX path). Not quite there yet (to say the least), so if you have a less buggy base I can work from that would be cool ;) -Toke