Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:18329 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755296AbYANJZr (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:25:47 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so2990180pyb.10 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:25:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: (sfid-20080114_092601_833374_F3ACEDD1) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:25:40 +0200 From: "Ron Rindjunsky" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] mac80211: A-MPDU Tx add session's and low level driver's API Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, flamingice@sourmilk.net, tomas.winkler@intel.com, yi.zhu@intel.com In-Reply-To: <1200261492.5887.25.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <11999857423156-git-send-email-ron.rindjunsky@intel.com> <11999857491583-git-send-email-ron.rindjunsky@intel.com> <1200068953.3861.180.camel@johannes.berg> <1200261492.5887.25.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > > It seems to me that this should be per-virtual interface instead of > > > per-hardware? I guess ultimately it won't make a difference because the > > > RA will be unique but I think we should still keep it per-vif where it > > > makes sense. > > > > > I can pass only vif in all the API i give, and that's something that i > > am not sure about since you introduced vif - generally all functions > > can get hw just from having the vif, but still there are plenty of > > places in the code that i see hw being passed back and forth. is it > > just because API compatibility or because something else i need to > > consider? > > Basically I'm thinking that everything that could in theory be > per-interface should be getting a vif. Say you have a multi-BSS AP. I > don't think it's really legal for a STA to associate to multiple APs at > the same time but want to avoid the code falling over when a STA > actually does associate to multiple of our virtual BSSes... Maybe that's > just unnecessary. > I am not sure about the necessity of it myself, as once A-MPDU is active all traffic for the RA/TID (no matter what interface usese it) should be aggregated. I will currently leave it this way, and if you see any problem please describe it specifically and i will change it either on this patch or on top of it.