On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 22:06 -0500, Bob Copeland wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 06:39:12PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Might be worth adding a note why this is the case. Can't we simply avoid > > this by checking earlier for the error or simply assigning it an actual > > default _good_ hw rate value? > > I guess an alternative is to initialize to 0, that would count any rx > packets whose hw rate we don't know about as the base rate, so it would > probably bias the RC to 1mb, but this is already one of those 'should > never happen' cases. I would prefer that we don't hide problems. If we don't know why we cannot get a valid rate, we should use WARN_ON and find out why and when it happens. I'm fine with using a bogus rate with WARN_ON. If we decide that we indeed cannot find the actual rate, then WARN_ON should be removed and the bogus rate replaced with an "unknown rate", that is, a special value that is never translated to a valid rate and never given to any rate control algorithm. Using a bogus rate without a warning is wrong in my opinion. It should be possible to represent "unknown rate" as such. That applies to all drivers. I remember that b43 also failed to report the rate in some cases (for the first received packet or something like that). -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- 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
