From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [RFC 1/2] ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:54:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D31B53F.7080705@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimAxXKiM_wBToLXfBxfwF1xbi+KZVHTQE-6fc0i@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/14/2011 05:41 PM, Bj?rn Smedman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Felix Fietkau<nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
>> Do we really need all those counters? Wouldn't it be better to iterate over
>> active interfaces instead?
>
> I think iterating over active interfaces is better, especially if we
> set up more fine-graned ah-> variables that make sense in themselves
> for stuff like power save and tsf sync. But that's just my two cents.
>
> As an example of something that may be more or less impossible to do
> without iteration consider multiple vifs with different beacon
> intervals. This could be handled by computing a greatest common
> devisor of all beacon intervals and using this for SWBA.
We already iterate when setting the bssid mask. I could have that
method calculate the vif counts with little extra cost. I want to avoid any more
linear iterations over the interface list if possible, so hopefully
I can re-use that one iteration and not add more...
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: "Björn Smedman" <bjorn.smedman@venatech.se>
Cc: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC 1/2] ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:54:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D31B53F.7080705@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimAxXKiM_wBToLXfBxfwF1xbi+KZVHTQE-6fc0i@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/14/2011 05:41 PM, Björn Smedman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Felix Fietkau<nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
>> Do we really need all those counters? Wouldn't it be better to iterate over
>> active interfaces instead?
>
> I think iterating over active interfaces is better, especially if we
> set up more fine-graned ah-> variables that make sense in themselves
> for stuff like power save and tsf sync. But that's just my two cents.
>
> As an example of something that may be more or less impossible to do
> without iteration consider multiple vifs with different beacon
> intervals. This could be handled by computing a greatest common
> devisor of all beacon intervals and using this for SWBA.
We already iterate when setting the bssid mask. I could have that
method calculate the vif counts with little extra cost. I want to avoid any more
linear iterations over the interface list if possible, so hopefully
I can re-use that one iteration and not add more...
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-15 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-14 17:27 [ath9k-devel] [RFC 1/2] ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs greearb at candelatech.com
2011-01-14 17:27 ` greearb
2011-01-14 17:27 ` [ath9k-devel] [RFC 2/2] ath9k: Add 'misc' file to debugfs, fix queue indexes greearb at candelatech.com
2011-01-14 17:27 ` greearb
2011-01-14 18:05 ` [ath9k-devel] [RFC 1/2] ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs Felix Fietkau
2011-01-14 18:05 ` Felix Fietkau
2011-01-14 18:16 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-14 18:16 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-15 1:41 ` Björn Smedman
2011-01-15 1:41 ` Björn Smedman
2011-01-15 14:54 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2011-01-15 14:54 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-14 18:58 ` Steve Brown
2011-01-14 18:58 ` Steve Brown
2011-01-14 19:12 ` [ath9k-devel] " Ben Greear
2011-01-14 19:12 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-14 23:19 ` [ath9k-devel] " Björn Smedman
2011-01-14 23:19 ` Björn Smedman
2011-01-14 23:24 ` [ath9k-devel] " Ben Greear
2011-01-14 23:24 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-15 0:55 ` [ath9k-devel] " Steve Brown
2011-01-15 0:55 ` Steve Brown
2011-01-15 1:20 ` Björn Smedman
2011-01-15 1:20 ` Björn Smedman
2011-01-15 11:07 ` Jouni Malinen
2011-01-15 11:07 ` Jouni Malinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D31B53F.7080705@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.