Hello.
On 19/12/16 03:32, Xue Wenqian wrote:
Hi, Stefan
Thank you for your reply.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:04:34PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
Hello.
On 16/12/16 08:30, wsn.iot.xwq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Xue Wenqian <wsn.iot.xwq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
Let me make some explanations for the patch:
No need to start the commit message like a mail. Just the description
is fine. :)
ok, I get it.
1. The filtering for client is made by checking frame header and sequence number
Sequence we did before as well so the additional check is for the
header here.
I know the sequence number check you did before, the reason I rewrite
here is that when the sequence problem occur, the program will also
update new timeout value and receive again until correct frame is
received or timeout
OK
2. Also, when client receives the incorrect frame, it will update new timeout value and receive again until correct frame is received or timeout
What happens when a frame is really lost?
First, such doing just tries to avoid a frame lost; Second, it will affect the wpan-ping interval value, since the time consumed for header and sequence number checking maybe large sometimes.
Why would the time to check these to values be long? Even on slow
hardware this should be fast enough.
Our experiment has relatively high requirement for the wpan-ping
interval, so I modified the code as such. If you think it is not
necessary, I could treat such frame as lost for the patch.
Just send an updated patch with the comments I made before. I will give
it some testing and let you know if I want anything further changed. Thanks.
regards
Stefan Schmidt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
