On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 08:23 -0800, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote: > > + lq_cmd->agg_params.agg_frame_cnt_limit = > > + sta_priv->max_agg_bufsize ?: LINK_QUAL_AGG_FRAME_LIMIT_DEF; > > at this point, sta_priv->lq_sta.lq.agg_params.agg_frame_cnt_limit has > the right value, why not use it? I wasn't sure it would _always_ have the right value, and if the ucode would accept 0 before needed -- the ?: construct will use it if non-zero, and use the default otherwise. > on the other hand, sta_priv->max_agg_bufsize == > sta_priv->lq_sta.lq.agg_params.agg_frame_cnt_limit > > why need both? Yeah I guess that would work if we put the init somewhere else, and didn't change it above in that function -- we need the minimum calculation to work. This seemed easier to verify to me :-) > > + /* > > + * Even though in theory the peer could have different > > + * aggregation reorder buffer sizes for different sessions, > > + * our ucode doesn't allow for that and has a global limit > > + * for each station. Therefore, use the minimum of all the > > + * aggregation sessions and our default value. > > + */ > > + sta_priv->max_agg_bufsize = > > + min(sta_priv->max_agg_bufsize, buf_size); > > + > not sure where the "bus_size" come from? It's a new argument to the function -- see patch 1/2. johannes -- 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
