On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 14:31 +0530, Saravana wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > Thanks for the clarification. So it seems the in the other case that you > had mentioned, we can confirm that last_tx_rate is updated with > inappropriate value. > So probably we could add another variable for the highest > performing/probability rate and update it with the txrc.reported rate > value. > The Last_tx_rate update with the highest performing/probability rate can > be removed. > > As far as Last Tx Rate is concerned, should we need to check for the flag? > I think the Last Tx Rate can be updated irrespective of the > IEEE80211_HW_HAS_RATE_CONTROL set or not. Well, "last_tx_rate" might be a bad variable name, but I think the behaviour we have now is consistent with something like "current_tx_rate" (rather than last), so I don't see any value in changing it. What use would the actual last rate have anyway, it keeps changing all the time. 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
