From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>, Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vasanth@atheros.com>
Subject: rate control vs. bands
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:51:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1221223890.11204.33.camel@johannes.berg> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1474 bytes --]
Hi,
During my rate control work I noticed that the band handling there is
somewhat awkward, and I wanted to collect opinions.
Currently, much of the code assumes that neither we nor station in our
bSS change bands; the PID algorithm even says:
/* We can safely assume that sband won't change unless we get
* reinitialized. */
which doesn't really seem true.
For the rate control algorithms, I was just thinking about removing the
rate_init() callback because this can just as well be done when
allocating the station. However, currently we don't pass the band to the
alloc_sta function, so that isn't possible right now.
It seems like it's well possible that say in an IBSS we have two
stations both dual-band capable and one manually switches them to a
different channel on a different band. This seems to totally throw off
everything we do, it'll be beaconing with an entirely bogus supported
rate set etc. However, it seems that it might also crash the rate
control algorithms.
Any ideas? Should we remove the rate_init function entirely and require
the RC algorithm to initialise for bands the hardware supports? (Those
can be checked via the 'hw' pointer argument we give to the alloc()
callback on the RC API.)
I'm currently leaning towards that, but what about HT stuff? Will that
change between bands? Is there anything band-specific? Why doesn't
anybody but me think about these corner cases?
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2008-09-12 12:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-12 12:51 Johannes Berg [this message]
2008-09-12 13:09 ` rate control vs. bands Johannes Berg
2008-10-02 8:40 ` Johannes Berg
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=1221223890.11204.33.camel@johannes.berg \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=j@w1.fi \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomas.winkler@intel.com \
--cc=vasanth@atheros.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox