On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 20:16 +0100, Karl Beldan wrote: > > Given the fact that we only send the frame from > > ieee80211_stop_tx_ba_cb() I don't see any problem. Even if we were to > > send the frame directly after calling the ampdu_action, it seems it > > would be fine, since the callback (now) requires sending the remaining > > frames unaggregated. (Given that, I'm not even sure why we required the > > packets to be sent unaggregated, Emmanuel, do you remember?) > > > I'd expect most device to not block ack such frames, and they'd be > right to do so, sending them unaggregated seems the right thing to do. Oh, I roughly remember now - we didn't want to separate the cases of us sending a delBA and us receiving a delBA. If we receive a delBA, we should stop sending aggregated frames immediately (actually for iwlwifi the firmware will do that) or as quickly as possible, hence the requirement If we decide to tear down the session ourselves then we could continue sending until later, but it's not worth it. > So, I guess you are taking what I sent ? Haven't really made up my mind yet ... I think it's more correct, so I should, but I also don't really want to break the ralink drivers over what seems to me to be a fairly small issue. johannes -- 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
