From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: allow Rx in reconfig only after removing BA sessions
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:42:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1340876555.4491.33.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+XVXfcDNcy+RjdxraqJ6LnYWt3XdtF-X-Ah9FdP=ZibnYp15g@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20120628_113828_388340_925DDFF5)
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 12:38 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Johannes Berg
> <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 11:37 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Johannes Berg
> >> <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 21:25 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> >> >> Previously, a connected STA/AP could send us some AMPDUs right after
> >> >> recovery, without the driver knowing anything about it.
> >> >
> >> > Huh, that description doesn't make a lot of sense? The STA/AP can send
> >> > us AMPDUs anyway without the driver knowing anything about it since it
> >> > has no idea we're restarting ...
> >>
> >> Well the point is to drop them early in the Rx path. Should I change
> >> the description or you don't like the patch in general?
> >
> > I don't mind the patch, I just don't quite understand it still.
> >
> > The driver is receiving the AMPDUs anyway, and if it's passing them up
> > why do we need to drop them?
>
> Well if the de-aggregration is in HW, they won't make it as far as
> mac80211. So this patch is for SW de-aggregators.
I don't think there's anyone doing AMPDU SW deaggregation? There
definitely isn't any code in mac80211 to do it ;-)
> But come to think of it, if the de-aggregation is done in SW, I guess
> there's no real issue with accepting them, since mac80211 didn't
> really reboot.
Or are you thinking of the reorder buffer?
> I guess we can drop the patch? It just seemed more correct to put the
> in_reconfig to false there.
I don't see how it's more correct? We're done reconfiguring and then
decide to drop all BA sessions ;-)
In a way, heck, it seems more correct to leave as-is. If we send a BA
action frame and receive a response to it maybe (is there a response to
delBA?) we don't want to drop it. Or if we send delBA and the peer wants
to start right away again, ...?
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-28 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-27 18:25 [PATCH] mac80211: allow Rx in reconfig only after removing BA sessions Arik Nemtsov
2012-06-28 8:17 ` Johannes Berg
2012-06-28 8:37 ` Arik Nemtsov
2012-06-28 9:30 ` Johannes Berg
2012-06-28 9:38 ` Arik Nemtsov
2012-06-28 9:42 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2012-06-28 14:18 ` Arik Nemtsov
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=1340876555.4491.33.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=arik@wizery.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox