On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 17:00 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

quoted

Do we even need end_schedule()? It's hard to pass multiple things to a
single call (do you build a list?), so having

	start_schedule(), get_txq(), return_txq()

would be sufficient?

Well, start_schedule() / end_schedule() would be needed if we are going
to add locking in mac80211?

[...]

If we decide mac80211 needs to do locking to prevent two threads from
scheduling the same ac, that would also be needed for the hw-managed
case?

Yes, good point.

quoted

It seems like not? Basically it seems to me that in the hw-managed
case all you need is may_tx()? And in fact, once you opt in you don't
even really need *that* since mac80211 can just return NULL from
get_skb()?

Yeah, we could just throttle in get_skb(); the separate call was to
avoid the overhead of the check for every packet. Typically, you'll pick
a TXQ, then dequeue multiple packets from it in succession; with a
separate call to may_tx(), you only do the check once, not for every
packet...

Yeah, also a good point.

Still, txq = get_txq(txq) doesn't feel right, so better to keep that
separate I think.

johannes