When the STA is in Dynamic SMPS mode, tell
minstrel_ht to use RTS_CTS for frames which
are transmitted using more than 1 spatial
streams.
Signed-off-by: Chaitanya T K <[email protected]>
---
net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c | 13 ++++++++++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
index c1b5b73..a1095d3 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
@@ -925,10 +925,17 @@ minstrel_ht_update_caps(void *priv, struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband,
sta->bandwidth < IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_40)
continue;
- /* Mark MCS > 7 as unsupported if STA is in static SMPS mode */
- if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
- minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1)
+ /* Handle STA's SMPS State
+ * a. Use RTS_CTS, if Nss>1 and if STA is in Dynamic SMPS Mode
+ * b. Mark Nss>1 as unsupported, if STA is in static SMPS mode
+ */
+ if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_DYNAMIC &&
+ minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
+ mi->tx_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_RC_USE_RTS_CTS;
+ } else if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
+ minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
continue;
+ }
mi->groups[i].supported =
mcs->rx_mask[minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams - 1];
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Johannes Berg
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 12:27 +0530, Chaitanya T K wrote:
>
>> + if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_DYNAMIC &&
>> + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
>> + mi->tx_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_RC_USE_RTS_CTS;
>> + } else if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
>> + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
>
> Your indentation is off inside the if statements. I'll have to wait for
> nbd to review the patch itself, I guess.
Ok, I will fix that. Checkpatch didn't catch that so missed it.
> PS: Your clock/timezone is wrong by approximately 10 hours.
Oh..I have sent this from my virtual-box where time is not properly set :-).
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Johannes Berg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 12:27 +0530, Chaitanya T K wrote:
>
> > + if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_DYNAMIC &&
> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
> > + mi->tx_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_RC_USE_RTS_CTS;
> > + } else if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
>
> Your indentation is off inside the if statements. I'll have to wait for
> nbd to review the patch itself, I guess.
>
Felix,
Any comments other than the indentation? If no, will send in the
v2 with indentation fixed.
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 12:27 +0530, Chaitanya T K wrote:
> + if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_DYNAMIC &&
> + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
> + mi->tx_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_RC_USE_RTS_CTS;
> + } else if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
> + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
Your indentation is off inside the if statements. I'll have to wait for
nbd to review the patch itself, I guess.
johannes
PS: Your clock/timezone is wrong by approximately 10 hours.
On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 23:49 +0530, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Krishna Chaitanya
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Johannes Berg
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 12:27 +0530, Chaitanya T K wrote:
> >>
> >> > + if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_DYNAMIC &&
> >> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
> >> > + mi->tx_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_RC_USE_RTS_CTS;
> >> > + } else if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
> >> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
> >>
> >> Your indentation is off inside the if statements. I'll have to wait for
> >> nbd to review the patch itself, I guess.
> >>
> > Felix,
> >
> > Any comments other than the indentation? If no, will send in the
> > v2 with indentation fixed.
>
> Was checking my old submissions. This was marked as "Not Applicable" in
> patchwork.
>
> Felix/Johannes,
>
> Can you please explain to me the meaning of the status "Not Applicable"?
This patch is *ancient*, before we actually used patchwork properly ...
johannes
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Krishna Chaitanya
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Johannes Berg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 12:27 +0530, Chaitanya T K wrote:
>>
>> > + if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_DYNAMIC &&
>> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
>> > + mi->tx_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_RC_USE_RTS_CTS;
>> > + } else if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
>> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
>>
>> Your indentation is off inside the if statements. I'll have to wait for
>> nbd to review the patch itself, I guess.
>>
> Felix,
>
> Any comments other than the indentation? If no, will send in the
> v2 with indentation fixed.
Was checking my old submissions. This was marked as "Not Applicable" in
patchwork.
Felix/Johannes,
Can you please explain to me the meaning of the status "Not Applicable"?
Regards,
Chaitanya T K.
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Chaitanya T K.
On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 03:03 +0530, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
> > This patch is *ancient*, before we actually used patchwork properly ...
> Ok, so you want me to send a V2 with the indentation fixed?
> (or) shall i wait for Felix's review before sending V2?
It seems unlikely that anyone would want to review a patch over 15
months later :)
johannes
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 23:49 +0530, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Krishna Chaitanya
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Johannes Berg
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 12:27 +0530, Chaitanya T K wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > + if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_DYNAMIC &&
>> >> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
>> >> > + mi->tx_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_RC_USE_RTS_CTS;
>> >> > + } else if (sta->smps_mode == IEEE80211_SMPS_STATIC &&
>> >> > + minstrel_mcs_groups[i].streams > 1) {
>> >>
>> >> Your indentation is off inside the if statements. I'll have to wait for
>> >> nbd to review the patch itself, I guess.
>> >>
>> > Felix,
>> >
>> > Any comments other than the indentation? If no, will send in the
>> > v2 with indentation fixed.
>>
>> Was checking my old submissions. This was marked as "Not Applicable" in
>> patchwork.
>>
>> Felix/Johannes,
>>
>> Can you please explain to me the meaning of the status "Not Applicable"?
>
> This patch is *ancient*, before we actually used patchwork properly ...
Ok, so you want me to send a V2 with the indentation fixed?
(or) shall i wait for Felix's review before sending V2?
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Chaitanya T K.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 03:03 +0530, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
>
>> > This patch is *ancient*, before we actually used patchwork properly ...
>> Ok, so you want me to send a V2 with the indentation fixed?
>> (or) shall i wait for Felix's review before sending V2?
>
> It seems unlikely that anyone would want to review a patch over 15
> months later :)
Please drop this patch, i have sent a new one in sync with HEAD.
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Chaitanya T K.