On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:39:58 +0100 Mattias Nissler <mattias.nissler@xxxxxx> wrote: > Why wouldn't you let userspace set the raw parameters directly? The > complicated scheme you propose prevents us to tell users/testers to > "change the X parameter to see it gives better Y results". If you give > access to the raw parameters, people can still tweak and tune them if > the rate control fails for special situations (e.g. hardware that cannot > report whether a frame was only retried or totally failed, special noise > situations, whatever). > > Furthermore, you can still have the simplified scheme by providing a > userspace tool (maybe even add it to iw, once we have an interface) that > takes the input, calculates the raw parameters as below and writes the > results to the kernel. > > Bottom line: This thing complicates the kernel, makes the thing less > understandable for people who now what a PID controller is, complicates > future tweaking and tuning of the (default) parameters and moreover > could also be implemented in userspace. So my vote is against it. I'm not so sure about this. I think that this is really specific to the algorithm, so it looked like a natural choice to put this into the kernel. But your points make a lot of sense. I should probably remove this from here and send patches to iw. > I've done a lot of code cleaning, maybe you want to base your patches on > that. There's more to come, but I'll send them so you have something to > start. Me too I started to clean up the code, nevertheless if you send them it will be useful. Thank you. -- Ciao Stefano - 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
