On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 13:53 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > In basic AP mode everything can be handled by hostapd. There are no > performance sensitive management task, therefore the original mac80211 > flow didn't rout management frames withing mac80211 mlme. But I see > benefit of keeping for example BA handshake, BAR, and MS/MIMO PS (not > implemented yet) inside mac. BA session requires knowledge of > sequence counters, BAR handles reordering buffer. MS-PS requires > knowledge of number or rx chains. It will expose too much guts to the > users space. I think it boils down to the policy. Should hostapd have influence on accepting a BA session or not? The cost of making it have influence would be high in terms of code because it needs new API for all kinds of things, take for example all the sta_rx_agg_session_timer_expired code etc which we'd have to reimplement in hostapd and have new API for it. I cannot think of a good reason why we should have hostapd involved, so I'm wary of adding all the code everywhere when making it work as-is would just require a bit of code-shuffling. > > In fact, what if we're in STA mode with userspace MLME? Do we want to > > handle all that in userspace then? This doesn't seem sensible to me. > > Also in this case I would leave this particular features + 11h > (channel switch, TPC) inside mac80211. Right, TPC and channel switch is STA-mode-only anyway though. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
