On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 12:36 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 12:33 +0100, Mattias Nissler wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 12:29 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > + /* Send management frames and broadcast/multicast data using lowest > > > > + * rate. */ > > > > + fc = le16_to_cpu(hdr->frame_control); > > > > + if ((fc & IEEE80211_FCTL_FTYPE) != IEEE80211_FTYPE_DATA || > > > > + (hdr->addr1[0] & 0x01)) > > > > + sel->rate = rate_lowest(local, mode, sta); > > > > > > I'm not sure but I don't think we want this. And you should use > > > is_multicast_addr() or whatever it's called. > > > > This piece comes directly from the old "simple" algo. You're right about > > is_multicast_addr. I agree this is something we might to get rid of, but > > I leave that decision to you. > > Right, but I guess that Intel's algorithms do something different and > this would break it. IMHO that decision should stay in the algorithm > itself. Actually, I carefully check the iwlwifi code and it copies this exact code. Finding it in there as well actually convinced me to move it out of the rate control. > > > Yes. It's after the get_rate() call so the algorithm can override it. > > But if it doesn't we compute it ourselves. > > Hmm. Then the algorithm can't specify "no fallback rate", can it? Correct. But why would you want that to be possible? Mattias - 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
