On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Nice find. > Then, because the hw rate value of such frames is zero BTW I believe frames should not go out at hw rate value 0, I did some test a while back on this rate and its not exactly reliable, you will get very funky behavior on it. Are you seeing that rate being used on legacy-hal? Last I asked about it too its not something people know about as being desired effect. I could be wrong but it'd be interesting to see where this is used correctly. >, and, since > 63266a653589e1a237527479f10212ea77ce7844 "ath5k: rates cleanup", we do not fall back to the basic rate, such packets would trigger > the following WARN_ON: So its slow because using rate 0 takes a while? If indeed you don't see a valid use for this rate I'd say to completely disallow it and use BUG_ON() on it. Luis -- 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
