On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 12:41 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> >> Meaning that other management frames are forward to user space while >> >> BA action frames >> >> are treated inside mac80211. >> > >> > Can you point out where? I don't see it. >> It's should be visible in AP code Yi has posted, unfortunately don't >> have it open right now. Anyhow since then the rx flow has changed a >> lot as you know :) so it has to be reinvented. > > Ok, so it's not in the current code and I'm not entirely stupid for not > finding it, heh :) I don't think I even still have the patches on this > box so I won't look. > >> >> > Also, I'm not talking about the AP triggering the aggregation session, >> >> > this is entirely done with the rate scaling right now, but about an >> >> > associated STA wanting to start an aggregation session. Aren't >> >> > aggregation sessions always triggered by whoever wants to send? So if a >> >> > STA notices it has lots of upload going on it could want to trigger a BA >> >> > session, which is something we don't currently support afaict. >> >> >> >> In iwl-agn-rs.c There is not difference if the peer is STA or AP. So >> >> we support this already. >> > >> > Not sure what this has to do with the Intel RS algorithm? >> >> Just the trigger for aggregation is implemented there. Otherwise >> nothing special. > > Well yes, but that just triggers when aggregation on our end, what I'd > been thinking about was when the remote side wants to start aggregation. There is some misunderstanding. I hope I'm explaining the problematic part. Aggregation is always initialized by TX side it's one direction only. So if there AP and STA wants to start aggregation. Both will open a stream. The streams are independent. Tomas > 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
