On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 02:07 -0700, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > From: Helmut Schaa [mailto:helmut.schaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: vrijdag 28 oktober 2011 9:52 > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Arend Van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > I would expect this to affect the duration field in the > > > 802.11 header to indicate the shorter use of the medium. > > > Going through your patch I am not sure this is done. > > > > I don't think so since the frame will still be acked by the peer as it > > is > > a unicast management frame. But this will advise the hardware that it > > does not need to wait for the ack to happen since we're not interested > > in retrying it. > I understand. However, the commit message of this patch suggests we are > saving airtime, which does not seem the case if the duration field is > not taken into account. If the ACK is still transmitted we should not > touch the duration field so I guess my comment is only on the commit > message itself. Oh good points ... The reason we save airtime is that often the frame will be retransmitted a lot if the station is no longer paying attention. 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
