When looking at this code during the rate control API rewrite yesterday, we wondered whether the determination of short preamble was correct or not. I don't think it was, and this should be better. Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- net/mac80211/tx.c | 13 +++++++++---- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) --- everything.orig/net/mac80211/tx.c 2008-10-11 10:06:51.000000000 +0200 +++ everything/net/mac80211/tx.c 2008-10-11 10:22:53.000000000 +0200 @@ -474,10 +474,15 @@ ieee80211_tx_h_rate_ctrl(struct ieee8021 txrc.rts = rts = true; } - /* XXX: Is this really the right thing to check? */ - if (ieee80211_is_data(hdr->frame_control) && - tx->sdata->vif.bss_conf.use_short_preamble && - (!tx->sta || test_sta_flags(tx->sta, WLAN_STA_SHORT_PREAMBLE))) + /* + * Use short preamble if the BSS can handle it, but not for + * management frames unless we know the receiver can handle + * that -- the management frame might be to a station that + * just wants a probe response. + */ + if (tx->sdata->vif.bss_conf.use_short_preamble && + (ieee80211_is_data(hdr->frame_control) || + (tx->sta && test_sta_flags(tx->sta, WLAN_STA_SHORT_PREAMBLE))) txrc.short_preamble = short_preamble = true; -- 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
