On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 12:59 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> plain text document attachment (mac80211-rc-rate-mask.patch)
> Extend struct cfg80211_bitrate_mask to actually use a bitfield mask
> instead of just a single fixed or maximum rate index. This change
> itself does not modify the behavior (except for debugfs files), but it
> prepares cfg80211 and mac80211 for a new nl80211 command for setting
> which rates can be used in TX rate control.
>
> Since frames are now going through the rate control algorithm
> unconditionally, the internal IEEE80211_TX_INTFL_RCALGO flag can now
> be removed. The RC implementations can use the rate_idx_mask value top
s/top/to/ :P
> @@ -257,7 +257,8 @@ void rate_control_get_rate(struct ieee80
> void *priv_sta = NULL;
> struct ieee80211_sta *ista = NULL;
> struct ieee80211_tx_info *info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(txrc->skb);
> - int i;
> + int i, j;
> + u32 mask;
>
> if (sta) {
> ista = &sta->sta;
> @@ -270,23 +271,26 @@ void rate_control_get_rate(struct ieee80
> info->control.rates[i].count = 1;
> }
>
> - if (sta && sdata->force_unicast_rateidx > -1) {
> - info->control.rates[0].idx = sdata->force_unicast_rateidx;
> - } else {
> - ref->ops->get_rate(ref->priv, ista, priv_sta, txrc);
> - info->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_INTFL_RCALGO;
> - }
> + ref->ops->get_rate(ref->priv, ista, priv_sta, txrc);
>
> /*
> - * try to enforce the maximum rate the user wanted
> + * try to enforce the rateidx mask the user wanted
> */
> - if (sdata->max_ratectrl_rateidx > -1)
> + mask = sdata->rc_rateidx_mask[info->band];
> + if (mask != (1 << txrc->sband->n_bitrates) - 1) {
> + if (sta)
> + mask &= sta->sta.supp_rates[info->band];
> for (i = 0; i < IEEE80211_TX_MAX_RATES; i++) {
> if (info->control.rates[i].flags & IEEE80211_TX_RC_MCS)
> continue;
> - info->control.rates[i].idx =
> - min_t(s8, info->control.rates[i].idx,
> - sdata->max_ratectrl_rateidx);
> + for (j = info->control.rates[i].idx;
> + j < txrc->sband->n_bitrates; j++) {
> + if (mask & (1 << j)) {
> + info->control.rates[i].idx = j;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
This could benefit from some comments :) I'm having trouble to see that
it's correct, but the min_t probably makes it correct?
> @@ -519,7 +519,11 @@ ieee80211_tx_h_rate_ctrl(struct ieee8021
> txrc.bss_conf = &tx->sdata->vif.bss_conf;
> txrc.skb = tx->skb;
> txrc.reported_rate.idx = -1;
> - txrc.max_rate_idx = tx->sdata->max_ratectrl_rateidx;
> + txrc.rate_idx_mask = tx->sdata->rc_rateidx_mask[tx->channel->band];
> + if (txrc.rate_idx_mask == (1 << sband->n_bitrates) - 1)
> + txrc.max_rate_idx = -1;
> + else
> + txrc.max_rate_idx = fls(txrc.rate_idx_mask) - 1;
I wonder if we should maintain the rate_idx_mask separately, so it's
outside the hotpath, or will we be removing all remaining uses of it
very soon?
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
