Em Quinta 27 Novembro 2008, às 18:02:22, Stefanik Gábor escreveu:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski
>
> <herton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > nack.
> >
> > I've seen other drivers set just a flag when hardware has a bit field to
> > signalize that there isn't need to ack the tx packet to be sent, but
> > don't saw anyone changing retry in tx hw header. Also setting to 0 in
> > no_ack case looks wrong, for example see ath5k where it even checks for
> > 0 and returns an error if you try to do this.
> >
> > --
> > []'s
> > Herton
>
> IMO the current implementation is even worse - completely disregard
> NO_ACK, and when a packet that should not be ACKed according to IEEE
> 802.11:2007 is sent (such as a broadcast), retry repeatedly until
> timeout.
In this case then shouldn't mac80211/rate control alg give a right rates[0].count?
And other drivers have same bug?
But I agree that we should set to 0 if to the hardware it means that 0 is the
same meaning to the no ack bitfield on others; only there is no reference/docs
mentioning this.
> Also, v26.1010 of the vendor driver does exactly what my patch does.
Is this newer than 26.1036.0708.2008 I have here? The version it never sets 0,
in code there is this:
if( WLAN_FC_GET_STYPE(le16_to_cpu(frag_hdr->frame_ctl)) == IEEE80211_STYPE_PROBE_RESP )
tx[5] |= (1<<8);//(priv->retry_data<<8); //retry lim ;
else
tx[5] |= (11<<8);//(priv->retry_data<<8); //retry lim ;
I didn't found this version 26.1010 to download, do you know where I can get?
--
[]'s
Herton
--
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
