On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 16:32 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> I wonder if "rate" is really the best interface for this. Since it's a >> threshold event, does it matter? Maybe there should instead be events >> for MCS changes and legacy rate changes so we can avoid all those >> calculations? > > In fact, since you'd only care about changes across a threshold etc, not > the absolute rate, you might be able to build the system without ever > doing the expensive rate calculation from MCS. What if I change the calculate() so that it does a cached table lookup? Since MCS numbers aren't linear or monotonic with regard to bitrate, those numbers can't be compared directly to set thresholds. I think it'd be a mistake to push it to userspace to interpret MCS and alert on every MCS change since that would just tradeoff calculation expense for nl80211 socket traffic, since without an understanding of the MCS ranking, it'd would not be possible to set thresholds. -- Paul -- 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
