On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:48:39 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 13:37 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > If we just check the ack bit, rate control would throttle, just because > > we sent unacked frames. > > Ah but rate control shouldn't actually care about frames that we never > expected an ACK for since there's no way to know for those anyway. So > IMHO the rate control algorithm shouldn't even be called for those > frames. > > > So if we didn't get an ack, we need to check if we failed, or if... > > Oh, acutally. Why not simply check the noack bit in the tx_control... :) > > Works too, but it seems mac80211 should do that. So, what's the point of this "excessive retries" field anyway? We already have an "acked" bit. So if it's not set, but we expected an ack, what's the point of setting excessive retries in the driver? the rc algo sould know _anyway_, as it has the "acked" and the "we wanted to have an ack" bits. confused.. -- Greetings Michael. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
