On 26 February 2015 at 02:20, Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:14:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> While I realize that people may disagree about the exact details of >> how to fix this in the long run, may I suggest that in the meantime we >> at least get the two workaround patches applied? > >> Does anybody hate Jouni's two patches *so* much that they can >> articulate *why* it would be wrong to apply them as interim patches? >> And if so, do you have better patches for me to try? Because if not.. > > Of all people, I do actually have some hatred on the one-liner to force > minimum rate for all EAPOL TX attempts. That is punishing the vast > majority of cases where the AP is perfectly fine with higher MCS rates > being used (and MCS 0 being sufficient fallback option) for EAPOL. Being > able to use higher TX rates as the initial attempt is a nice feature and > even though this may be limited to number of upstream Linux drivers > today, that part of the feature is an improvement, IMHO. This can even > be more robust in some environments especially when going through long > EAP exchange with certain types of interference. I remember running the math - well, the "airtime" math, and realised it was almost always cheaper to do the single, non-aggregated EAPOL frame exchange at the lowest rate than to try higher rates and fall back to the lowest rates. -adrian -- 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
