lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [EXT] [PATCH] mwifiex: set needed_headroom, not hard_header_len
Date
Hi Brian,

> hard_header_len provides limitations for things like AF_PACKET, such that
> we don't allow transmitting packets smaller than this.


OK; However, are we not supposed to mention hard_header_len also?

>
> needed_headroom provides a suggested minimum headroom for SKBs, so
> that we can trivally add our headers to the front.
>
> The latter is the correct field to use in this case, while the former mostly just
> prevents sending small AF_PACKET frames.
>
> In any case, mwifiex already does its own bounce buffering [1] if we don't
> have enough headroom, so hints (not hard limits) are all that are needed.
>
> This is the essentially the same bug (and fix) that brcmfmac had, fixed in
> commit cb39288fd6bb ("brcmfmac: use ndev->needed_headroom to reserve
> additional header space").

OK; I read this commit:

"... According to definition of LL_RESERVED_SPACE() and hard_header_len, we should use hard_header_len to reserve for L2 header, like ethernet header(ETH_HLEN) in our case and use needed_headroom for the additional headroom needed by hardware..."

So, does it mean, hard_header_len is already considered by upper layer?


Regards,
Ganapathi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-05 05:00    [W:0.095 / U:2.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site