Return-path: Received: from mfe1.polimi.it ([131.175.12.23]:41524 "EHLO polimi.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753966AbXLUUDM (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:03:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:00:17 +0100 From: Stefano Brivio To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless , sam , Michael Wu , Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: better rate control algorithm selection Message-ID: <20071221210017.36f34fe3@morte> (sfid-20071221_200314_528086_7105F300) In-Reply-To: <1198253375.16241.76.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1198253375.16241.76.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:09:35 +0100 Johannes Berg wrote: > Below is the patch, comments welcome. I think this is the way we want > it, tristate for all rate control algorithms regardless of whether > mac80211 is modular (where =y then means "build algorithm into > mac80211") and forcing one of the algorithms to y to do exactly that. What about avoiding to force any algorithm to y, and instead always build a dummy (a few lines of code which would just set the rate to the lowest available) rate control algorithm into mac80211? Looks good otherwise. -- Ciao Stefano