Re: HT action frame code

["Tomas Winkler" <tomasw@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 12:41 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
>
>> >> Meaning that other management frames are forward to user space while
>> >> BA action frames
>> >> are treated inside mac80211.
>> >
>> > Can you point out where? I don't see it.
>> It's should be visible in AP code Yi has posted, unfortunately don't
>> have it open right now. Anyhow since then the rx flow has changed a
>> lot as you know :) so it has to be reinvented.
>
> Ok, so it's not in the current code and I'm not entirely stupid for not
> finding it, heh :) I don't think I even still have the patches on this
> box so I won't look.
>
>> >> > Also, I'm not talking about the AP triggering the aggregation session,
>> >> > this is entirely done with the rate scaling right now, but about an
>> >> > associated STA wanting to start an aggregation session. Aren't
>> >> > aggregation sessions always triggered by whoever wants to send? So if a
>> >> > STA notices it has lots of upload going on it could want to trigger a BA
>> >> > session, which is something we don't currently support afaict.
>> >>
>> >> In iwl-agn-rs.c There is not difference if the peer is STA or AP. So
>> >> we support this already.
>> >
>> > Not sure what this has to do with the Intel RS algorithm?
>>
>> Just the trigger for aggregation is implemented there. Otherwise
>> nothing special.
>
> Well yes, but that just triggers when aggregation on our end, what I'd
> been thinking about was when the remote side wants to start aggregation.

There is some misunderstanding. I hope I'm explaining the problematic
part.  Aggregation is always initialized by TX side it's one direction
only. So if there AP and STA wants to start aggregation. Both will
open a stream. The streams are independent.
Tomas


> johannes
>