On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:30:29AM +0300, Valentin Manea wrote: > > > On 07/07/2009 07:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:48 AM, John W. Linville<linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:10:52PM +1000, David Ross wrote: >>>> Actually it is required to be a mutual BASIC rate (not extended rates) - >>>> not necessarily the "lowest possible" - David. >>> True, but FWIW I think all of our rate scaling algorithms choose the >>> lowest rate. >> >> And then iwlwifi and ath9k have their own rate control algo, and at >> least ath9k uses the lowest valid rate IIRC. >> >> Luis > > > I've found the code in ath9k and you are right, it always chooses the > lowest rate. > So, basically to transmit multicast frames at a better bitrate I have > to hack the rate control algorithm, right? Yes. Feel free to suggest patches for all of the available (i.e. both generic and device-dependent) algorithms as well. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. ¡Viva Honduras Libre! -- 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
