From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 15 01:49:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019D57D1 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:49:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (we-in-x022b.1e100.net [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 859ABA27 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:49:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u54so2545532wey.16 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:49:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CgMwkRXvsL1cYIjCH6AWkVHpSrbPMP5//9PPQp2SusQ=; b=0V7OzJ02ap75NkOVY2cFcytKHinG3kEK1KaQmYHtQNTFvBuXTaaCV4ATFFPMlO92Sh OeqfNcENHJlEGrOCtW1+xsUyp56rOjZYZWlKyuxcBDdbyYPnuVaziqagiW/cqO8y19tj oaMcYy1o9HpVUKcAhUezbVe2cjubTWzKnJIYbNOeji0fhEkMtyk/5B8q9Aqw1sSUteVQ /J0lJH3h+94wYlqk/e38YUcxtF37Qik/BLMboSNVBN7NpsSrxTEn1ZsDJv8zPTIIsP8g P9RnVdD7cRXRkufomxZWMOdR/JvD2PlZ3tSVYVNXawyAzt8g0v5g0DjAxkCl6Rtm9AHR vo+w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.81.164 with SMTP id b4mr1129081wiy.34.1360892957531; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:49:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.236.88 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:49:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:49:17 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hWR2SvwkI3YqNWr2Xr5bYe90nqQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] serialising net80211 TX From: Adrian Chadd To: Monthadar Al Jaberi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:49:19 -0000 On 14 February 2013 11:50, Monthadar Al Jaberi 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? Adrian