Return-path: Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.140.247.100]:46230 "EHLO perninha.conectiva.com.br" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751021AbYJHWsd (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:48:33 -0400 From: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski To: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rtl8187: do not report ACKs if USB Tx status is non-zero Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:48:46 -0300 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <1223407098-23060-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <20081008184205.GB32472@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20081008184205.GB32472@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200810081948.46977.herton@mandriva.com.br> (sfid-20081009_004837_575962_236D8C35) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 08 October 2008 15:42:05 John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 03:18:18PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > The vendor-supplied driver treats a USB Tx failure as an un-ACKed frame. > > I don't see why we shouldn't do the same thing -- hopefully this makes > > rate-scaling algorithms behave sanely with the rtl8187 driver. > > > > Thanks to Felix Fietkau for suggesting this as an > > option. > > > > Signed-off-by: John W. Linville > > --- > > This is currently untested -- anyone with rtl8187 bored enough to try > > it? :-) > > AFAICT, this doesn't actually trigger -- at least, the device can > go into its typical failure mode (no frames ACKed until you force a > lower rate) without ever hitting the "assume ACK not received" clause. I tested here and it didn't trigger indeed, here at least urb->status == 0 always no matter what I tried, which seems normal, only would trigger at some not typical usb failure? But there is one thing that I like about the patch, seems correct that we shouldn't set IEEE80211_TX_STAT_ACK if IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK, that is, looks like a bug always setting ack in the flags when no_ack is present, not sure if it has some effect in practice though (have to look more at the code that cares about info->flags). I would say that the patch 'as is' is correct and will not hurt. > > I'll keep looking at it -- there are a couple of 'secrets' still > buried in the vendor driver (if I can stomach to keep looking at it)... yeah, not very straightforward to grasp the vendor driver unfortunately... good would be to have some times docs/explanation about some of the values used, when you're luck there is some comments and references at some places. > > John -- []'s Herton