On 2013-03-04 9:45 PM, john wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:12:04PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 19:27 +0100, Karl Beldan wrote: >> > From: Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Currently it gets it from the sdata. This uses and updates the ad-hoc >> > masks of the ieee80211_tx_rate_control instead of copying them. >> >> Is there any need to update them? >> >> The change for "mask" seems to make it less efficient since it could >> otherwise be put into a register. >> > Totally, this commit spares the 10bytes copy of mcs_mask but adds a less > efficient indirection to mask. > I thought of it but kept the symmetry with mcs_mask. > Apparently you wouldn't mind the dissymmetry so I will re-send using mask > by value, plus I wrote "updates .." where it is more like "lets the > ad-hoc masks get overwritten". It seems to me that all of this could be made more efficient by default if a mcs mask pointer is only passed to rate control if the user actually configured a MCS mask. Also, filtering out rates from the mask that the sta does not support seems a bit unnecessary, since the rate control usually looks at the HT capabilities and the sta's mcs rx mask anyway. - Felix -- 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
