From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:43264 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752412Ab3IES3A (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:29:00 -0400 Received: from [192.168.100.226] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r85ISxpm006650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:28:59 -0700 Message-ID: <5228CD6B.5010209@candelatech.com> (sfid-20130905_202903_042158_51598771) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:28:59 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Specifying priority for management frames? References: <5228CAB6.5060308@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: <5228CAB6.5060308@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/05/2013 11:17 AM, Ben Greear wrote: > While debugging a problem with group-rekeys, we noticed that the sniffer (on external machine) > reported management packets are sent in the best-effort QoS queue. > > It seems to me that these should be in the VO queue instead, or at least > we should be able to specify the queue in supplicant when sending the frames? Hrmm, actually it appears the mac80211 layer tries to send on VO. Maybe some of my hackings are messing this up...I'll go dig deeper. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com