On 9/18/24 09:12, Berg, Benjamin wrote:
On Wed, 2024-09-18 at 07:08 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
On 9/18/24 05:39, Benjamin Berg wrote:
From: Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
Most of the logic to reject BSSs during transition has been moved
into
wnm_is_bss_excluded. In addition to this, since commit 67bf89f55442
("WNM: Choose the best available BSS, not just the first one") we
will
simply choose the BSS with the best throughput.
It looks like you are dropping the logic that will keep it from
roaming
unless the change in estimated throughput is relatively large?
[snip]
- if ((!target->est_throughput && !bss_in_list-
est_throughput) ||
- (target->est_throughput > bss_in_list-
est_throughpubelieve it does not do anything since the commit I
mentionedt &&
- target->est_throughput - bss_in_list->est_throughput
- bss_in_list->est_throughput >> 4)) {
- /* It is more than 100/16 percent better, so
switch. */
- return target;
- }
Or is that somehow handled in the current code elsewhere?
No, I believe it does not do anything since the commit I mentioned.
If bss_in_list is set and it is better, then it will have already been
sorted to the start by find_better_target.
If bss_in_list is not set, then obviously the code will not be reached
and the found target is used.
And yes, that does mean that we are effectively ignoring the
order/precedence value in the neighbor report (apart from a zero
preference to mean "disallowed"). But, I do not think it is a change in
behaviour at this point in time.
We need to dampen roams in the case where a user sits between two APs at nearly the same
RSSI (well, same estimated tput). It should not roam back and forth every time a small environmental change
happens. The code you are removing at least attempted to do that as far as I
can tell.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
