Am Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009 schrieb Johannes Berg: > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 11:50 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Maybe I should use other terms. Ideas? > > Ah, ok. Since your patch 4/5 changes sw_scanning to SW_SCANNING, I think > at least change it to BG_SCANNING there already. OTOH, I think people > are used to sw_scanning so it would be better to keep it. Maybe do > SW_SCANNING > and > SW_SCANNING | OFF_CHANNEL > > or maybe > SW_SCANNING | PROBING > or something like that? Yes, something like this sounds better and does not cause so much confusion. > > > Anyway looks pretty good to me! How does it fare during ping -f or > > > something? > > > > I compared it to the hw_scan implementation of iwlwifi. We loose a few > > more frames (I guess due to not flushing the queues before channel switch) > > but it's not really much, it was <1% for ping -f). > > Yeah, we still need to add a queue flush callback for the hardware, but > that can wait some more. Right, that can wait :) > > I didn't do much performance testing, just a single wget and the performance > > dropped to about 50%. I still have to run some iperf tests (both RX and TX) to > > see how it behaves. > > I'd be more interested in the rtt stats that ping -f prints after you > abort it: > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.021/0.028/1.726/0.051 ms I don't have any stats here anymore but if I remember correctly the max rtt I got was around 250ms. Will try that again when I'm back in the evening. Helmut -- 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
