On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 13:22 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Guess you are right that it will be difficult to get a completely
accurate number. But as David Lang notes, as long as we are off by
the same amount for all stations, that is fine - we're just
interested in relative numbers.
That's not quite true though, you'd overestimate most on stations that
are using aggregation, assuming you take into account the whole frame
exchange sequence time. But maybe giving less than their fair share to
fast stations isn't really that much of a problem.
how much error does this introduce?
Compared to the stations using 802.11b, this is a trivial difference.
That's why I said perfect is the enemy of good enough. Yes, it would be ideal to
get the airtime from the driver, but if the driver doesn't provide it, I think
ignoring aggregation in the name of simplicity is 'good enough'
David Lang
