On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Thanks. Yes, I do realize that this is a bit intrusive. On the other > > > hand, I can't see the code holding the spinlock for longer code/periods > > > of time (nor should it). Or do you think the driver is allowed to call > > > into the AMPDU TX setup path while being called from the AMPDU RX setup > > > path? That would be a bit weird. > > > > > > > TX and RX BA sessions are triggered from different threads of > > execution namely rate scaling and RX path. The protected sections are > > quite long IMHO including call outs to underlying driver. It is very > > likely that both sides decides for BA session at the same times. > > Yes, but I still can't see how the driver would be calling both RX and > TX aggregation functions /within each other/. That's the only thing that > really matters since all the frame TX/RX is synchronized and thus the > spinlock can't really be contended. Anyway, I need to look deeper into > the code or just try or something. > > > > > > Do you have any setup to check your these changes? > > > > > > Unfortunately not quite yet. I have an 11n AP now though, but broke of > > > one of the antennas, I'll need to see how well it works. > > > > That's bad 11n is too sensitive on antennas setup. > > Yeah, I know. I don't know why my router has three antennas though > knowing that the Broadcom HW only has two chains. Number of antennas is not the same as number of chains. Also 4965 has 3 antennas but only 2 chains. We have some fixes in that context coming this week. Tomas - 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
