On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 21:13 +0100, Lukáš Turek wrote: > On 26.11.2009 20:25 Johannes Berg wrote: > > My standard reference was obviously crap -- let's see, 7.3.2.9 is > > better. > Yes, I found the table. And now I also noticed the real difference: the slot > time according to the standard rises in a step of three (which means ACK > timeout will rise in a step of six). It's quite significant loss of > precision, but it probably shouldn't make much difference in throughput. It only affects lost packets anyway, no? > Anyway, this solutions would be good enough for us if it was accepted. So you > propose to add parameter NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_COVERAGE to nl80211 and functions > set_coverage/get_coverage to cfg80211_ops? Would that be sufficient? It'd be kinda cool if mac80211 auto-configured itself if it picked up a beacon that had this information, etc. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
