> > 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. Heh, ok. Let's leave it like this then. > > > 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? No idea :) johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
