--- On Sun, 2/11/08, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snipped>
> Yes, cleanups, minor optimization and fixes, like freeing
> skbs in status queue
> on interface stop, btw this was the patch for
> wireless-testing from some days
> ago while still in 2.6.27 (different from previous version
> I sent privately with
> printks/debug):
<snipped>
__skb_unlink(skb, &priv->b_tx_status.queue);
> + if (tok)
> + info->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_STAT_ACK;
> + else
> + info->status.excessive_retries = 1;
> + info->status.retry_count = pkt_rc;
> +
> + ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe(hw, skb);
<snipped>
okay, I looked through my hard disc and it seems that I have 3 versions of the rate control patch - the first one sent privately, I think, the 2nd one as part of a patch series of 2 with conf-tx, and a 3rd one above
which is supposedly between the two, posted to wireless-testing (which apologies, I don't subscribe). There is a very crucial difference:
I noticed that whenever STAT_ACK is always an alternative to
setting excessive_retries:
---------------
if (condition)
info->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_STAT_ACK;
else
info->status.excessive_retries = 1;
---------------
But the else-clause is missing in the latest patch (of two), which also seems to be where both you and Larry are having rate stuck at 1Mb/s for.
- and the line below
"info->status.rates[0].count = pkt_rc +1 ;" doesn't compile
under 2.6.27, so I changed the rates[0].count to the retry_count,
and simultaneously adding the else-clause back.
My question is this: is the removal of the else-clause unintensional,
could it result in your 1Mb/s rate?
Hin-Tak
--
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
