Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb: >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. I think I'm fine with this now. Let's just see if someone experiences any issues ... Furthermore I think i even remember that you can force ralink HW to stop a BA session. But all in all lets better comply with the spec ... Helmut -- 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
