On 25/04/14 17:44, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 16:03 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: >> From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Users may need information about the expected throughput > > I think this "expected throughput" should be a bit clarified. > > Are you talking about "expected PHY rate" or rather "expected (payload) > throughput"? It is not payload throughput because in this "number" we also consider the bytes being part of the 802.11 Header. Maybe we can call it "expected MAC throughput" ? > >> towards a given peer computed by the RC algorithm. >> Export such value in Mbps/100 through the get_station() API. > > "units of 10Kbps" might be a better description :-) > >> This unit has been chosen because it is the same of the >> throughput returned by MinstrelHT. > > Since it's unlikely we'll ever reach the limit of a u32, maybe just > multiply by 10 to get the nicer Kbps? At least we are safe in the near future :) Ok, I can change it to Kbps because it seems that a lot of people will be happier :) > >> + * @expected_throughput: expected throughput in Mbps/100 reported by the RC >> + * algorithm towards this station. The unit of this value has been chosen >> + * because it is the same of the throughput returned by MinstrelHT > > I think the rationale shouldn't be here now. > I think I will just remove the last sentence. Thanks a lot! -- Antonio Quartulli
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
