Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.116]:43258 "EHLO mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757644AbXFLUfM (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:35:12 -0400 Message-ID: <466F037C.9080403@lwfinger.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:35:08 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Wu CC: Jiri Benc , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mac80211: Implementation of SIOCSIWRATE References: <4668a64b.VmU9f2GpA2itSuFx%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <200706071819.45603.flamingice@sourmilk.net> In-Reply-To: <200706071819.45603.flamingice@sourmilk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michael Wu wrote: > > One last thing - max_ratectrl_rateidx should be set to -1 to indicate no > maximum. Not doing this will cause problems when switching from one hw mode > to another with a different number of rates. I don't understand this last part. If we use the upper-limit form of the rate command, isn't that indicated to the rate-setting routine by having max_ratectrl_index set to the upper limit, and force_unicast_rateidx set to -1? If max_ratectrl_rateidx must always be -1, why does it exist as a parameter? Larry