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 E59843B25D for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 04:23:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail2.tohojo.dk E4F784161D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1472718204; bh=BWDFp+TsiqbCicS0dVnPJiCvan1r55k3qaZL8daNKVQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jBcftEdoQCH6Exbez/pvkvP0OChdUmUtpNGS3QMtU8IFiW+XEyu/JV1QtBX9f6l9Q wdSUzaXHJ1RP57CDHO6G6W9T2pN0lPN7P44nn+rb1ZM35UQvNXj6ULOz6GivXgCHAl 3NuWbS1rNbPqmwVx6hW6ZkiYmRTwe9zqwvHW+zcc= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F14DB82833D; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:23:23 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Johannes Berg Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <20160824162015.29933-1-toke@toke.dk> <20160830131548.6014-1-toke@toke.dk> <1472677599.5470.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 10:23:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1472677599.5470.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Wed, 31 Aug 2016 23:06:39 +0200") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87inug81vo.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH v4] mac80211: Move reorder-sensitive TX handlers to after TXQ dequeue. 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: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 08:23:27 -0000 Johannes Berg writes: >> +static int invoke_tx_handlers(struct ieee80211_tx_data *tx) >> +{ >> + return invoke_tx_handlers_early(tx) || >> invoke_tx_handlers_late(tx); >> +} > > Ugh, please, no, don't be tricky where it's not necessary. Now every > person reading this has to first look up the return type, and then the > return value, and make sure they understand that success is actually > the value 0 ... that's way too much to ask. Noted. Any objections to turning these into bool return types? I'll go through and fix your other comments and send a new version. Thanks for the feedback :) -Toke