Re: [PATCH v3] mac80211/drivers: rewrite the rate control API

[Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@intel.com>]

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 23:36 -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> So after the previous changes we were still unhappy with how
> convoluted the API is and decided to make things simpler for
> everybody. This completely changes the rate control API, now
> taking into account 802.11n with MCS rates and more control,
> most drivers don't support that though.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>

[...]

> @@ -318,9 +348,33 @@ static void iwl3945_rx_reply_tx(struct i
>         }
> 
>         info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(txq->txb[txq->q.read_ptr].skb[0]);
> -       memset(&info->status, 0, sizeof(info->status));
> +       ieee80211_tx_info_clear_status(info);
> +
> +       /* Fill the MRR chain with some info about on-chip retransmissions */
> +       rate_idx = iwl3945_hwrate_to_plcp_idx(tx_resp->rate);
> +       if (info->band == IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ)
> +               rate_idx -= IWL_FIRST_OFDM_RATE;
> +
> +       info->status.rates[0].count = tx_resp->failure_frame + 1;

This is useless. And it is even confusable with the later count++.

> +       fail = tx_resp->failure_frame;
> +       for(i = 0; i < 4; i++) {

Where does the '4' come from? Why not IEEE80211_TX_MAX_RATES?

> +               int next = iwl3945_rs_next_rate(priv, rate_idx);
> +
> +               info->status.rates[i].idx = rate_idx;
> +
> +               if ((rate_idx == next) || (i == 3)) {

ditto

[...]

Other iwlwifi changes looks fine to me.

Thanks,
-yi