Return-path: Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.29]:23358 "EHLO yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750860AbYIIJwE (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:52:04 -0400 Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so1088387yxm.1 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240809090252u44c5a016m98845379ac213df9@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080909_115210_240964_2D6DA7B3) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:52:02 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: HT action frame code Cc: "Jouni Malinen" , "Ron Rindjunsky" , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <1220953379.31304.124.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <1220883730.31304.60.camel@johannes.berg> <48C5868B.8060103@w1.fi> <1220942004.31304.101.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240809090114u67086f2duc5cc9addd384e30d@mail.gmail.com> <1220948427.31304.107.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240809090146p612083aclf3a2a924a81e75e9@mail.gmail.com> <1220950358.31304.112.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240809090241g2604e3ddhfd39359fd8eb0f8b@mail.gmail.com> <1220953379.31304.124.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 12:41 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> >> Meaning that other management frames are forward to user space while >> >> BA action frames >> >> are treated inside mac80211. >> > >> > Can you point out where? I don't see it. >> It's should be visible in AP code Yi has posted, unfortunately don't >> have it open right now. Anyhow since then the rx flow has changed a >> lot as you know :) so it has to be reinvented. > > Ok, so it's not in the current code and I'm not entirely stupid for not > finding it, heh :) I don't think I even still have the patches on this > box so I won't look. > >> >> > Also, I'm not talking about the AP triggering the aggregation session, >> >> > this is entirely done with the rate scaling right now, but about an >> >> > associated STA wanting to start an aggregation session. Aren't >> >> > aggregation sessions always triggered by whoever wants to send? So if a >> >> > STA notices it has lots of upload going on it could want to trigger a BA >> >> > session, which is something we don't currently support afaict. >> >> >> >> In iwl-agn-rs.c There is not difference if the peer is STA or AP. So >> >> we support this already. >> > >> > Not sure what this has to do with the Intel RS algorithm? >> >> Just the trigger for aggregation is implemented there. Otherwise >> nothing special. > > Well yes, but that just triggers when aggregation on our end, what I'd > been thinking about was when the remote side wants to start aggregation. There is some misunderstanding. I hope I'm explaining the problematic part. Aggregation is always initialized by TX side it's one direction only. So if there AP and STA wants to start aggregation. Both will open a stream. The streams are independent. Tomas > johannes >