On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 03:06:23PM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2011-09-29 2:14 PM, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote: > >On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 01:32:03PM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> On 2011-09-29 1:24 PM, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote: > >> >Select appropriate rate as highest rate of rate series, if the frame > >> >was asked to be sent at minimum rate. For example nullfunc frames > >> >either can be sent at HT rates on normal case or at non-HT rates if > >> >it is used for connection monitoring. > >> > > >> >Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >--- > >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.c | 4 ++-- > >> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> Shouldn't the check for IEEE80211_TX_CTL_USE_MINRATE be in > >> rate_control_send_low(), so that it does not have to be repeated in > >> every single rate control module? > >> > >But I donno what could be the side effect of changing rate_control_send_low > >as it is used by all drivers. And also if the rate control provide the > >minrate, it can be used to update the PER upon tx status. isnt it? > It always updates the PER upon tx status, even if > rate_control_send_low was used. It should work the same way for > every driver, so I think putting this in the ath9k rc is the wrong > place, and it would be weird if a flag with such a generic name as > IEEE80211_TX_CTL_USE_MINRATE would be used by some rate control > modules and ignored by others. > That true. Till now rate_control_send_low never be used for data frame. So just to be causious, I dicided to process tx_ctl at rate control side. If it wont break any rate control algo other than ath9k, then I send my earlier rfc patch. Thanks for your input. -- Rajkumar -- 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
