On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 12:09 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Johannes Berg >> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 12:03 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > >> >> > We put them into the reorder buffer, but if we get a reorder timeout >> >> > while scanning we'll drop the frames which isn't necessary. >> >> >> >> Ah, got it, thanks, good catch. Guess its not a terrible stable fix, >> >> but at least important for those who care about VoIP and such. >> > >> > You wouldn't typically use aggregation on VO traffic, I think? >> >> ath9k uses aggregation for all data traffic. > > But it can only control TX :) True > Which is, of course, relevant if it's used > as an AP, True > but for typical VO traffic I would argue that using > aggregation is a bug since it'll just increase delays & jitter. This deviates from subject a little but while at it, I am curious, Matt, Srini, what do you think? 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
