On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:11PM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > 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. > Yes, some things look a bit overkill in the masks logic. Karl -- 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
