On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 19:24 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2015-09-28 09:41:43, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-09-26 at 12:24 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > That would be equivalent to ping -Q, right? It does not seem to have > > > any effect :-(. I'd expect at least local machine to use shorter waits > > > for medium, and thus drop packets instead of waiting. > > > > Correct. But it won't *drop* packets, it just increases the chances of > > getting medium access. > > Increases chances of medium access, but limits number of retries, so > it should drop sooner, no? No, assigning VO AC by itself won't (typically) limit the number of retries. > This should send the second ping to the priority queue based on -Q, > but I don't see an effect against one access point.... and it seems to > work somehow against second one. Good! > Well it depends on whether or not your AP supports WMM/QoS to start with :) johannes -- 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
