From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ah14w-00075w-Uj for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:33:04 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.149] (firewall.candelatech.com [50.251.239.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46FE740B2C6 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:25:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Ben Greear Subject: Why does the driver configure only 2 keys per peer? Message-ID: <56EC6456.2060007@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:25:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: ath10k For instance: #define TARGET_10_4_NUM_PEER_KEYS 2 But, there are 4 key-ids, and so the driver can attempt to allocate 3 per peer. Now, the self-peer probably only has one key ever (and that is blank key), but that still averages to 5 per vdev (when vdev has 2 peers), and if AP peers can have more than 2 keys, then the average is even worse for them. In 10.1, I ended up using '4' instead of 2. I guess I'm about to repeat that change for 10.4 firmware. But, I'm curious why someone thought 2 was OK to begin with? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k