On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:22:21PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 16:45 +0200, Karl Beldan wrote: > > > > > The typo is clearly showing but the faulty behavior clearly demands more > > > > detail indeed. > > > > > > > > It affects non-(V)HT rates and can lead to selecting an rts_cts rate > > > > that is not a basic rate or way superior to the reference rate (ATM > > > > rates[0] used for the 1st attempt of the protected frame data). > > > > E.g, assuming the drivers register growing (bitrate) sorted > > > > ieee80211_rate tables, having : > > > > - rates[0].idx == d'2 and basic_rates == b'10100 > > > > will select rts_cts idx b'10011 & ~d'(BIT(2)-1), i.e. 1, likewise > > > > - rates[0].idx == d'2 and basic_rates == b'10001 > > > > will select rts_cts idx b'10000 > > > > The first is not a basic rate and the second is > rates[0]. > > > > > > > > I hope it clarifies things enough. > > > > > > Well, I'm still not sure which tree I should put it in, I guess? > > > > > > > All I can say is that nor this faulty behavior nor the correspond fix > > are likely to cause a crash (we always tx registered rates). > > But it's still pretty misbehaving, no? That IMHO warrants fixing and > even cc stable. > Also, for the record, ATM we have only one rts_cts rate. A way to handle every retry rates is still missing, along with (V)HT rates. 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
