On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:27:48PM +0100, john wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:53:39PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:10 +0100, Karl Beldan wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Are you planning to send new patches to improve this? > > > I'll see what I can come up with. > Now, FWIW, I was looking at how the masks are applied - the code tries to be thorough wrt the various RC flags - 2 things at least are missing: handle basic rates with multicast, and protection when downgrading to pre-ht rates. 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
