On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:52:52AM -0700, Vasanth Thiagarajan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:17:16PM +0530, Luis Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Vasanthakumar
> > Thiagarajan<vasanth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * Fine tuning for when no decent rate was found, the
> > >> + * lowest should *not* be used under normal circumstances.
> > >> + */
> > >> + if (rix == ath_rc_priv->valid_rate_index[0]) {
> > >> + DPRINTF(sc, ATH_DBG_RATE, "lowest rate being used, "
> > >> + "disabling MRR\n");
> > >> + rates[0].idx = rate_lowest_index(sband, sta);
> > >> + /* Disable MRR when ath_rc_ratefind_ht() found rate 0 */
> > >> + rates[1].idx = -1;
> > >> + }
> > >
> > > I think we can still fill other rates (1..3) with the lowest rate
> > > index as we dont differentiate the situation where the lowest rate
> > > is chosen truely by the algorithm from this particular case.
> >
> > I thought about that as well, but does it really make sense for us to
> > use MRR with the same lowest rate? That's why I just used one segment.
> > Thoughts?
>
> or we can try for max_retry (4) times. In that case the rate indices of
> other rates (just not 1) should be made -1 or this segment should be
> moved just below the rate find.
So the count should have already been set up to 4, and the next segment [1]
is set to -1. Please let me know if there is anything else you see needs
change.
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
