Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:49260 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751566AbYIIKZl (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:25:41 -0400 Subject: Re: HT action frame code From: Johannes Berg To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Jouni Malinen , Ron Rindjunsky , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <1ba2fa240809090321w4d2f3780g32e9507fac45f95e@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080909_122153_370566_DF11DC5F) 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) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-qWyuDv7tEf8V8NWHoEFr" Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:25:34 +0200 Message-Id: <1220955934.31304.133.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20080909_122544_763886_3E25910C) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-qWyuDv7tEf8V8NWHoEFr Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 13:21 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > Right. And if mac80211 is the AP, then I don't see how the STA can star= t > > aggregation since I couldn't find where the relevant action frames are > > handled. But you said it's not part of the code now, so I couldn't find > > it anyway. >=20 > That's probably the current situation. 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. johannes --=-qWyuDv7tEf8V8NWHoEFr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJIxk8aAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYMsEP/2bKJ9Tvr+IS8k8lB6dF90Er 6T9iTe9icjMqqBETMROmneROx+X4hx4VWiUz12M9rL9ShORASVwcYYiIIcx9pANr vWmOBeUwunPJ/nNB9dunLADbYA0yPOeSuqPArB/28cAD4GNnT4eFq30AoyLIFYiY mntqlyTzTvRTqA2m0m1xlheuLlU6YdPbjIrFmpBv6KZUpoZ46j0mdeMJ2l/GRS2v G83g4Jj//4bohJNJMuebE4BvzmovRIV8klcwZ7oBhlW6pYzAgi9V7m26UP+EmBpT j9XiP+G3z59S53ve79Fv/hhvXtbhjynyjkXONoKThfj5S8tkoTf9iljC2iH6Pu+g QbpXuTSwEFQmiDnveSnRCM8rCmYOGZiyN2H6DQWxcC2vK3s1WiDhSqcUevG0s6G+ 9Ugv21g1qpWwRIdXV0DYRMo9WguwOUVDHFdQ9kaP1uO35poRwL6PyZr6CGvacGy/ P+ZdTTlLUyO3URFRS7StD7vbye4vhoChHfov7m2ToKSBB9gl1/+86NFfpjfuMwz2 Hl6y7skz7+yow8cMJTGoKKZrIg1qk2In2bUcTBZ0UlTjwpU9Y0XIs2kPgftBSjhp 2ElVmCcq6TA+Kyb/kTRwZSnZ/g0HtZUD84LbtSp+XYAjb7ty3pHVXYLS1tYRFJIk BLA/kOMiI++4HB+kjE5B =YLz+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-qWyuDv7tEf8V8NWHoEFr--