[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MN2PR18MB26374464564D1F5A418CA98EA0160@MN2PR18MB2637.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:15:53 +0000
From: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"Doug Anderson" <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH 1/2] mwifiex: dispatch/rotate from reorder table
atomically
Hi Brian,
> (1) iterating / clearing the mwifiex reordering table
> (2) dispatching received packets to upper layers
>
> This makes it much harder to make lock recursion mistakes, as these two
> steps no longer need to hold the same locks.
Yes, this is clean;
>
> Testing: I've played with a variety of stress tests, including download stress
> tests on the same APs which caught regressions with commit
> 5188d5453bc9 ("mwifiex: restructure rx_reorder_tbl_lock usage"). I've
> primarily tested on Marvell 8997 / PCIe, although I've given 8897 / SDIO a
> quick spin as well.
>
Thanks a lot for this; We will also run the tests locally; But, I find the change is good;
Acked-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>
Regards,
Ganapathi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists