linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH rtw-next v2 7/7] wifi: rtw89: process TX wait skbs for USB via C2H handler

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <04b364eb49a4465a826fdc92e5ca5680@realtek.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:59:31 +0000
From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
CC: Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@...il.com>,
        Zong-Zhe Yang
	<kevin_yang@...ltek.com>,
        Bernie Huang <phhuang@...ltek.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lvc-project@...uxtesting.org" <lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH rtw-next v2 7/7] wifi: rtw89: process TX wait skbs for USB via C2H handler

Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, 07. Oct 08:07, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> > Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru> wrote:
> > > @@ -1173,7 +1173,8 @@ int rtw89_core_tx_kick_off_and_wait(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, struct sk_buff *sk
> > >
> > >         if (time_left == 0) {
> > >                 ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > -               list_add_tail(&wait->list, &rtwdev->tx_waits);
> > > +               if (!rtwdev->hci.tx_rpt_enable)
> > > +                       list_add_tail(&wait->list, &rtwdev->tx_waits);
> >
> > Oh. You avoid using rtwdev->tx_waits for USB. But I'd like to have the same
> > behavior as PCIE.
> 
> I may be confused but doesn't it conflict with the comment [1] you've
> posted to the previous version?  I've treated that as we should use
> rtwdev->tx_rpt_queue for both TX wait and IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS
> frames...

Yes. I got this thought after reviewing whole v2.

> 
> I'm all for following the PCIe-style as possible, too, but then initial
> comment [1] becomes irrelevant, right?
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/c2c40bed311c4f05948cf2541c64ea30@realtek.com/

At the [1], I wanted to iterate skb's in rtwdev->tx_rpt_queue, and then call
rtw89_core_tx_wait_complete() if 'wait' existing in RTW89_TX_SKB_CB().

I think the idea is similar, but I might not have clear picture at v1 review.
If you feel they are conflict, just check and discuss with new comments.