Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.183]:17797 "EHLO
	wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755255AbYBDTF0 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:05:26 -0500
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so3082896wah.23
        for <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1ba2fa240802041105g1e11ba99ldaca4acee4a07c35@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080204_190532_923774_7EB079A3)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:05:25 +0200
From: "Tomas Winkler" <tomasw@gmail.com>
To: "Felix Fietkau" <nbd@openwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mac80211: add rate to ieee80211_tx_status
Cc: "Johannes Berg" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <1ba2fa240802041103v622db90co2ddc24eda3347ffc@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <12020697053277-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com>
	 <47A718CF.50303@openwrt.org> <-5971017268625562167@unknownmsgid>
	 <1ba2fa240802040621h2c0e9fe6yb5d84d24513aedf4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <-7767648866191425885@unknownmsgid>
	 <1ba2fa240802040713k56fdf22fp8ab15924bbebe88@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47A72E13.8070305@openwrt.org>
	 <1ba2fa240802041036v2b311eb4vcced7a9f1e2aa6a0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47A75BF5.90101@openwrt.org>
	 <1ba2fa240802041103v622db90co2ddc24eda3347ffc@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

On Feb 4, 2008 9:03 PM, Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2008 8:39 PM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
> > Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > Will this work work you?
> > >
> > > ieee80211_tx_ratectrl {
> > >   u32 bitrate ( or pointer to ieee80211_rate I prefer no)
> > >   u32 flags
> > >   u32 retry_count
> > > }
> > >
> > > ieee80211_tx_status {
> > >     ieee80211_tx_ratectrl  retry_count[ X]  / * X >= 4 */
> > > }
> > I guess that would work, but shouln't the array below be dynamic based on
> > what the driver can do? Many drivers can only work with one or two rates, IMHO.
>
> The problem that this structure is passed with each packett I don't
> like the idea that anybody would even try to allocate and free this
> structure as packets goes. However what about the following?
>
> ieee80211_tx_status {
>          size_t nrates;
>          ieee80211_tx_ratectrl  retry_count[0] ;
> }
>
Sorry I meant
ieee80211_tx_status {
>          size_t nrates;
>          ieee80211_tx_ratectrl  rates[0] ;
> }
> > - Felix
> >
>