Hi Johannes, On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 08:38 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. > I don't think I have patch 1/2 Here is what I have [RFC2/2]iwlwifi: use maximum aggregation size [RFC2/2]iwlwifi: advertise max aggregate size Wey -- 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
