From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:57784 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752642AbXHBLhh (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:37:37 -0400 From: Michael Buesch To: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [RFC V2] bcm43xx-mac80211: Provide information to allow transmission rate decreases Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:37:21 +0200 Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Larry Finger References: <46b0f367.p35iGhSXwM+v4QLG%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <200708021311.25033.mb@bu3sch.de> <1186053497.24230.27.camel@johannes.berg> In-Reply-To: <1186053497.24230.27.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200708021337.21285.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:18:17 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 13:11 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > We don't get a "I failed to transmit this" bit from the firmware, > > Well, if you expect the frame to be acked then you do get a bit 'this > frame was ever acked' Yep, the problem is for frames that don't get acked. If we just check the ack bit, rate control would throttle, just because we sent unacked frames. So if we didn't get an ack, we need to check if we failed, or if... Oh, acutally. Why not simply check the noack bit in the tx_control... :) -- Greetings Michael.