On Tuesday 11 September 2007 12:29:56 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 12:20 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > What about the following: > > We have a "the packet failed" IRQ. so we know that if that didn't > > raise for a packet, it must have succeed. > > So currently we already maintain a queue of TX packets. What about > > changing the handling of this queue? Instead of dropping (and > > telling mac80211 success) on an ACK RX, simply do a timeout. > > We can calculate the time (plus some additional msecs to be sure) > > by when an ACK must have arrived, no? > > That's tricky though, because multiple retry rates mean that it can > possibly take quite a while for the packet to go through. And ath5k > wants to support up to 7 different rates for each packet. I'm only talking about zd, though. > > So, if that times out, > > signal a success. Wouldn't that be reliable? Given that the "tx failed" > > IRQ actually _is_ reliable. > > Yeah, and in-order would have to be guaranteed as well so we can match > which packet failed and assume all previous ones were OK. -- 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
