On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:26:08PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 22:55 +0100, Karl Beldan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some time ago the rate selection for radiotap injected frames did not
> > make it essentially for mac80211 getting short in IEEE80211_TX_CTL_*s.
> >
> > Would it be acceptable to replace the originally proposed:
> >
> >
> > - if (!(tx->local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_HAS_RATE_CONTROL))
> > + if (!(tx->local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_HAS_RATE_CONTROL) &&
> > + !(info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_RC))
> > CALL_TXH(ieee80211_tx_h_rate_ctrl);
> >
> > with something like :
> >
> > - if (!(tx->local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_HAS_RATE_CONTROL))
> > + if (!(tx->local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_HAS_RATE_CONTROL) &&
> > + !(info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_INJECTED && info->control.rates[i]))
> > CALL_TXH(ieee80211_tx_h_rate_ctrl);
>
> No, older wpa_supplicant/hostapd still use monitor interfaces for
> management frame transmissions, and require rate control.
>
Since they require rate control, I guess they don't pass any radiotap
IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_{RATE,MCS} ? In that case that wouldn't disturb them.
And, oops typo, I meant :
+ !(info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_INJECTED && info->control.rates[0] != -1))
with info->control.rates[0] properly set in the radiotap header parsing,
instead of :
> > + !(info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_INJECTED && info->control.rates[i]))
If that changes anything to what you guessed.
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
