[Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH v4] ath9k: Switch to using mac80211 intermediate software queues.

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Kalle Valo <kvalo at codeaurora.org> writes:

> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk> writes:
>
>> Kalle Valo <kvalo at codeaurora.org> writes:
>>
>>> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Kalle Valo <kvalo at codeaurora.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand your point, but I don't want to rush this to 4.9 and then
>>>>> start getting lots of bug reports and eventually forced to revert it. If
>>>>> we just found a new serious regression the chances are that there are
>>>>> more lurking somewhere and this patch is just not ready yet.
>>>>
>>>> So, the changes to mac80211 that fixes the known regressions of this
>>>> patch have gone in.
>>>
>>> I guess you mean this commit:
>>>
>>> bb42f2d13ffc mac80211: Move reorder-sensitive TX handlers to after TXQ dequeue
>>>
>>> (Just making sure that I have the same commit in my tree when I apply
>>> this)
>>
>> Yup, that's the one :)
>>
>>>> Any chance of seeing this merged during the current merge window? :)
>>>
>>> I sent last new feature ("-next") patches for 4.9 last week, sorry. So
>>> this has to wait for 4.10.
>>
>> Ah, right, I think I got my merge windows confused. You already said you
>> wouldn't take it for 4.9. So I guess what I'm asking is for you to put
>> it into the appropriate -next tree so it can get some wider exposure
>> ahead of the *next* merge window...
>
> Yeah, we have plenty of time for 4.10 :) So my plan is to apply this
> after I open wireless-drivers-next in 2-3 weeks or so. That would mean
> that the patch would hit Linus' tree when 4.10-rc1 is released
> (estimated to happen on 2017-01-01). The timing is actually perfect as
> now we get maximal testing time on -next.

So the -next trees are those that are open outside the merge window.
Right, got it; thanks :)

>>> And I assume I need to take v5:
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9311037/
>>
>> Yes. Haven't noticed anything that changed since that might conflict
>> with it, but let me know if I missed something and you want a refreshed
>> version.
>
> Thanks, I'll let you know if there are any problems.

Cool.

-Toke