Search Linux Wireless

Re: Re: adding ba_policy member in drv_ampdu_action op - request information

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi johannes,

kindly find my thoughts below:

if you are referring to the addba-request to transmit a ADDBA with delayed block ack, yes, i accept what you have stated. but, then we would need to support delayed block ack on the TX.

for my query, i was thinking more with respect to the receive side of an AP.

if, let us say a particular station is capable of delayed block ack which might not be a linux station(presently it seems, linux box will only pursue immediate block ack), then on receive of a block ack request, the lower layer can just send an ack if the policy is known to be delayed block ack.

It can later decide to send out the actual block ack response in the next TXOP. i felt this could be independent of actual support of delayed block ack on the TX side. this also provides the entire block ack info to the lower layers.

looking forward to your inputs
thanks and regards
Vivek



-------- Original Message --------

SUBJECT:
Re: adding ba_policy member in drv_ampdu_action op - request
information

DATE:
Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:17:58 +0100

FROM:
Johannes Berg  [1]

TO:
vivekanandah@xxxxxxxxxxx [2]

CC:
linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [3]

On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 12:10 +0530, vivekanandah@xxxxxxxxxxx [4]
wrote:
Hi,

presently in code, the block ack policy is not sent by mac80211 to
the
lower level driver via the ampdu_action callback.

The mac80211 while transmitting a block ack (ADDBA)request,
hardcodes
the block ack methodology to immediate block ack.

on the receive side, the delayed block ack bit is checked
along-with
the capability of the receiver station to support delayed block
ack.
even if the station supports delayed block ack, mac80211 does not
send
the ba_policy down to the driver.

should ba_policy be sent to the driver so that lower level drivers
can
take a call as to send block ack response in a delayed manner at
its
convenience?

Well, if you wanted to support it, you'd first have to change the
negotiation to actually ask for it, no?

johannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [5]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html [6]



Links:
------
[1] mailto:johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[2] mailto:vivekanandah@xxxxxxxxxxx
[3] mailto:linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[4] mailto:vivekanandah@xxxxxxxxxxx
[5] mailto:majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[6] http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux