On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 17:06 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > Please put some reasoning behind this 'wrong'? Different doesn't mean > wrong and 'only one' certainly doesn't mean wrong. > And it also doesn't mean that this hw should not operates correctly > under Linux. I also cannot publish any performance comparison but it > doesn't look wrong at all. Well I read that that you said one needs hardware queues for correctness, which clearly cannot be the case since neither Atheros nor Broadcom have hardware queues used for this. > If Intel is the only vendor implements this that way that we may push > the extra queuing into driver > but so far I've seen only athk9 with 11n. I think we need a terminology update and a bit of a big picture thing here. First of all, let me ask a question: Why should stations that enable aggregation be treated preferentially by giving them an extra qdisc? As far as I'm concerned, they should _not_ be, and thus their packets should flow through the qdisc for the same AC that packets from non-agg stations go through. If this AC queue gets full because it's background and video is hogging the air, then for fairness reasons we really should stop the whole AC and not let aggregation frames continue to flow. I think we're talking about two different queue stopping issues here maybe? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
