From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:36136 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727170AbeH3NIi (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:08:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id m27-v6so7339668wrf.3 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:07:26 +0200 From: Lorenzo Bianconi To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one Message-ID: <20180830090725.GE9867@localhost.localdomain> (sfid-20180830_110732_030935_BBF686FF) References: <1535570007.5215.34.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1535616192.5215.37.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20180830083115.GA9867@localhost.localdomain> <1535618382.5215.44.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20180830085054.GB9867@localhost.localdomain> <1535619189.5215.47.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20180830090045.GC9867@localhost.localdomain> <1535619812.5215.49.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1535619812.5215.49.camel@sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Aug 30, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 11:00 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:50 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > > ack, I agree. Do you want I send a patch to fix it? > > > > > > I have it written now, I'll just commit & send it out. > > > > Sound good, thx :) > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU > > > > > header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the > > > > > subframes 2..N in the fraglist. > > > > > > > > > > So I think this is right? > > > > > > > > yep, correct. But when we are analyzing the second subframe what is the correct value for 'n'? > > > > 1 or 2? At the moment I guess it is set to 1 if frag_tail is NULL for head. > > > > > > Ah. I guess you're right. So basically setting max_subframes to 1 > > > doesn't avoid A-MSDUs completely, since n will still be 1 when we get > > > here ... good point, care to send a patch? > > > > > > > ack, I will send a patch for it > > The same is true for nfrags, btw, no? I do not think so since for nfrags we have: nfrags = 1 + skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; nfrags += 1 + skb_shinfo(head)->nr_frags; and even if frag_tail is NULL we will have nfrags = 2. Agree? Lorenzo > > johannes