Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:49:17 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Monthadar Al Jaberi <monthadar@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] serialising net80211 TX Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonQOmScK7LTjJ6kgcgyh2PZPRa1AVEPyJcSens6G1jBoA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BsBSo%2BUu1KSADeDgrfyM_wGiu3UUB%2BHUewFVj=OGvEnoVNuDw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmonS0cds9nCFYxc_nZuDRL93=2_4T2B4tUzPuGC3Bhz2FA@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BsBSo%2BUu1KSADeDgrfyM_wGiu3UUB%2BHUewFVj=OGvEnoVNuDw@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 14 February 2013 11:50, Monthadar Al Jaberi <monthadar@gmail.com> wrote: > Seems like the best architectural wise, first-in first out. I am just > thinking of one can extend this too have like more than one queue, > more like the QoS concept, and each packet have a time-stamp assigned > to it.Would that help? Well, the queue thing is a bit orthogonal. Yes, we could run multiple queues and multiple kernel threads. But what would multiple kernel threads get us? Adrianhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonQOmScK7LTjJ6kgcgyh2PZPRa1AVEPyJcSens6G1jBoA>