> As this series of patches only adds HT handling with no aggregations, > (A-MPDU aggregations acceptance is not obligatory according to 802.11n draft) > we are currently sending back a refusal upon this request. Heh. In the Kconfig you just wrote that it handles AMPDU and AMSDU aggregation which I'd expect to imply deaggregation too. Nothing serious, just seemed a bit weird! :) And isn't one of the two (I always forget which one) rather a feature of the hardware? > +#ifdef CONFIG_MAC80211_HT > +/* mgmt header + 1 byte action code */ > +#define IEEE80211_MIN_ACTION_SIZE (24 + 1) > + > +#define IEEE80211_ADDBA_PARAM_POLICY_MASK 0x0002 > +#define IEEE80211_ADDBA_PARAM_TID_MASK 0x003C > +#define IEEE80211_ADDBA_PARAM_BUF_SIZE_MASK 0xFFA0 > +#endif /* CONFIG_MAC80211_HT */ Leave out the ifdefs please when they only protect definitions or such, i.e. nothing that will generate code/allocate structure space. > + capab |= (u16)(buf_size << 6); /* bit 15:6 max size of aggergation */ typo: aggregation. Interesting what an email program with a spell checker makes you notice :) (No, I'm not suggesting you run a spell checker, I'm rather saying that I probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise) > +static void ieee80211_sta_process_addba_request(struct net_device *dev, > + /* TODO - add here aggregation support */ I think that comment is misleading. We don't add aggregation support here but rather when adding it we must change this code, but anyway. Don't bother. > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: received unsupported BACK\n", > + dev->name); net_ratelimit() please, otherwise people can flood our logs by just sending us strange frames. Btw. I'd like to remove code from ieee80211_sta.c rather than add this much. Do you see any way to partition your code differently? The ieee80211_sta.c file is a huge file and barely understandable when you just read it... I was at one time working on extracting the scan code out from it and keep only MLME stuff in there. My goal was to be able to not compile ieee80211_sta.c unless the user wanted the in-kernel MLME, but maybe I should rather put the MLME into a new file then. I'd appreciate if you could give it (partitioning the code otherwise) a thought, but I promise I won't be disappointed if you don't want to do it. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
