Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:49313 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751785AbYIIK1S (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:27:18 -0400 Subject: Re: HT action frame code From: Johannes Berg To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Jouni Malinen , Ron Rindjunsky , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <1220955934.31304.133.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20080909_122544_763886_3E25910C) References: <1220883730.31304.60.camel@johannes.berg> <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> <1ba2fa240809090252u44c5a016m98845379ac213df9@mail.gmail.com> <1220954146.31304.127.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240809090321w4d2f3780g32e9507fac45f95e@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080909_122153_370566_DF11DC5F) <1220955934.31304.133.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20080909_122544_763886_3E25910C) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3PE9O87hyIqlRJpoy3rQ" Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:27:12 +0200 Message-Id: <1220956032.31304.135.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20080909_122721_028526_ABAE2B7F) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-3PE9O87hyIqlRJpoy3rQ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 12:25 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 13:21 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: >=20 > > > Right. And if mac80211 is the AP, then I don't see how the STA can st= art > > > aggregation since I couldn't find where the relevant action frames ar= e > > > handled. But you said it's not part of the code now, so I couldn't fi= nd > > > it anyway. > >=20 > > That's probably the current situation. >=20 > So back to square one, where should it be handled? Does it really make > sense to let hostapd have influence over the decision, or should we just > move the code that we have a bit and handle it in the kernel? After all, > we do have all the code necessary to handle it, but it's currently > restricted to STA mode, and I don't see a fundamental reason for that. In fact, what if we're in STA mode with userspace MLME? Do we want to handle all that in userspace then? This doesn't seem sensible to me. johannes --=-3PE9O87hyIqlRJpoy3rQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJIxk98AAoJEKVg1VMiehFYT40P/29UEDWlHTxq1WGo/nlxVIUS 6DZnAUQrdF4PQvwf9eyqp13WkRhemFkauanA9KGetMWDgNm5yWVQmpAdW/EV2MAQ 8LaJhU9NZ2sN+C/TWoe7wIVUB/Q/nOf66mbpDuMvVnEgp/c+4pZK+l2v+Y6Q3i/f iwgrkA+kpb6EhdW8FIVpZZZz7VWG3ZTE64c5iOuxJIHVw+sgLXWPm+wX3tPfh5RX kj3IUMeqC5U46ZbgxIZuI37h09LcVNzz3nWDELu2Ougv7eAw91EMo0N1Y0c2nWX8 4fUTFwMLQFsii5jyoqnBby+tK+hkJhQUdZzz7baWgKLXTced4BV1ehHcL67noSyL vpNdaXuabpoV4xUnuP7DUmA3yALGcLHD2HKiYgc7Pbk7Qu3tr03v5XMvFwEQK9mG eRnyvuVvYcDSrAOEOMFzuY9FTiPYNaKCifF7WJPYYsx+VuViLy3lGFwj/6QZYa4T GrWHwm7rFOKAfFQt9N7c5eRQnCWyyKLMxaa420S2m0gH3WaChJusEPbcahjxlLZ+ 9ZrCr/6Jgluf+uVZ5+9hPNtc0016WKse3nQv4hhUIc6RaRarq1Hf23P1AcRGyODT NvdPSYR/AEiXvha6cum3Q3d9bDh9feTXjni6+xuQrxFe6Ey+UAyEnm27K2mdhHM4 /4Ad4CKiCY4n04jsDPex =fbh6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3PE9O87hyIqlRJpoy3rQ--