On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Javier Cardona <javier@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 20:08 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:26 -0700, Javier Cardona wrote: >>>(...) >>> Uh, so does mesh want full QoS support or just QoS headers? The latter >>> seems a little odd to me. But if it wants QoS how about zd1211rw? I >>> don't think that even supports QoS? >>> (...) >> I'd rather not send QoS frames to mesh stations that don't advertise QoS >> capability, and I'd also rather not have to worry about sending QoS >> frames when we don't actually support it locally. > > OK. If QoS support is mandatory for mesh stations, then definitely > that's the way to go. We'll have to investigate how to advertise QoS > for mesh interfaces: this is currently not happening even though all > the hardware we use for mesh supports it. Kazuyuki Sakoda, the current technical editor of TGs kindly pointed me to the right section in the draft: Sec 5.2.14.3 states that "mesh STAs are QoS STAs (...) [that] implement a subset of QoS functionality". The use of the QoS frame format and EDCA support are mandatory. Based on that I'd like to prevent the creation of mesh interfaces on phy's that don't support multiple queues. Would you like to suggest a good place to perform that check? Thanks! Javier -- 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
