Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:39059 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750763AbYJTJEe (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:04:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] mac80211: Re-enable aggregation From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Sujith , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Luis Rodriguez , "tomasw@gmail.com" In-Reply-To: <43e72e890810200201l49eea95h2f67615b536311aa@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081020_110224_061497_5B3E0C1D) References: <18684.16351.638713.791015@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1224491480.18024.32.camel@johannes.berg> <43e72e890810200135o1581c904i456a35298f8a56a9@mail.gmail.com> <1224492335.18024.34.camel@johannes.berg> <18684.17816.702853.44986@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <43e72e890810200155wbe01660xe3f53de80dc7357d@mail.gmail.com> <1224493038.18024.36.camel@johannes.berg> <43e72e890810200201l49eea95h2f67615b536311aa@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081020_110224_061497_5B3E0C1D) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-6TBWbMIpRD9btUbzlS1V" Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:04:29 +0200 Message-Id: <1224493469.18024.38.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20081020_110438_435658_8E1A99BB) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-6TBWbMIpRD9btUbzlS1V Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 02:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Well the fact that it's in tx_h_sequence is a bit weird, but we should > > be able to get around not using an extra bit in skb I think. Especially > > for this since it's only really between the driver and mac80211, and > > after a requeue the ampdu status might actually change. >=20 > Good point. I failed to see that. So in that case it should be as > sujith had it before my suggestion and just handle it as he had it in > the tx handlers. The problem though is that the RC algorithm should be > the one to determine if an skb is part of an ampdu for aggregation or > not IMHO. Actually this is the real question and hot topic. >=20 > When should we aggregate and should mac80211 decide that or be left to th= e RC. No, the RC algorithm cannot decided that, the RC algorithm can merely decide when to set up/tear down aggregation sessions. When a session is up all packet belonging to that TID should go into it, surely? johannes --=-6TBWbMIpRD9btUbzlS1V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJI/EmZAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYj3QP/2W4JT0myRPmboqUzPmTXvv/ JLgK9zZK4vGJacB0+Cz0evpyjxMvx7Dj29mraSmjmVFOVz7dvIjnfGqht0dmil68 soE4L9CMvtct3MSreJDOfPqlQV2otYHE1Ga7W44lZgNqiXngeBObe4n1z9UR20Tw PWyELc+qrpcUbBJ0dqcfGnv9ItIz4J5tvtJcps6r2WW3XyWkYZLoFYJjEb+0De+3 U3IoFwBqbEjrEY8jTmzm8MXJtEbqICpKMlUc9DqSD4MRhM9WrnQxZAEKhX2ghAgP s5cAjGMuySKBxFtwe+de9KI5iwxHuR/1YwmSwyyoPWjZWWKwlWjV9AcnFROycOEJ d9Ae94junAJV/V2XAie97RyOfJcWmOMDORSC/T5K2fLHgwtrOTcusSmPYdeNMZwy 6q2B+MGtYP080S2ExZlecZ0oCsG4wqhO4zBvk5LYbESey5KI5AVPZv0rtZGK/jzx FnmwtCxPO74nhmvljWzU5ovT9xH5O1s4yW9c7seolR99eXOzY13U958n0w9tiwop JEymhpeQamkgWTq2FOOHxzNtmJBeov9S69Z1x3jESji92AhG8r1h1oPz9qS3H0+4 0lFbIxTsQmP+y7f+VtlSABhNz1jd9YBmdOZ+uSgTyFgTESXl0sJxddFfsyMjXL0D TNuBOfbGaVBHCN0yvL5p =heyl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-6TBWbMIpRD9btUbzlS1V--