On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 03:30:17PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 17 March 2013 15:07, Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The best way I could look at it was that it would let drivers know the frame is > > being transmitted under BA, but it still changes the meaning and thus > > the handling of the flag. > > Frankly, if the meaning "officially" becomes "this frames is being > > transmitted under BA", as the code behaves, and you seem to say, I am all > > for it ;) > > Well, having it be "This frame is being transmitted under aggregation" > can't be guaranteed anyway. > > Eg, imagine the case where your BA window is such that you've sent 0 > .. 63 and only received a BA for 1..63. > So you have to send one single frame - why would you request a > blockack and why would you transmit it as an aggregate? :) > When I wrote "under BA", I meant "under BlockAck Aggreement" not "will be aggregated" ;) 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
