Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.36.123.2]:53616 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751005AbZFES3h (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:29:37 -0400 Received: from mail.atheros.com ([10.10.20.104]) by sidewinder.atheros.com for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:29:40 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:29:44 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Vasanth Thiagarajan CC: Luis Rodriguez , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "johannes@sipsolutions.net" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] ath9k: fix oops by downgrading assert in rc.c Message-ID: <20090605182944.GD30211@tesla> References: <1244180502-4323-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1244180502-4323-2-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <20090605063059.GF17632@vasanth-laptop> <43e72e890906050047w71f8e691g479797a54f5fb9a0@mail.gmail.com> <20090605075252.GG17632@vasanth-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20090605075252.GG17632@vasanth-laptop> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:52:52AM -0700, Vasanth Thiagarajan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:17:16PM +0530, Luis Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Vasanthakumar > > Thiagarajan wrote: > > > > > >> + > > >> + /* > > >> + * Fine tuning for when no decent rate was found, the > > >> + * lowest should *not* be used under normal circumstances. > > >> + */ > > >> + if (rix == ath_rc_priv->valid_rate_index[0]) { > > >> + DPRINTF(sc, ATH_DBG_RATE, "lowest rate being used, " > > >> + "disabling MRR\n"); > > >> + rates[0].idx = rate_lowest_index(sband, sta); > > >> + /* Disable MRR when ath_rc_ratefind_ht() found rate 0 */ > > >> + rates[1].idx = -1; > > >> + } > > > > > > I think we can still fill other rates (1..3) with the lowest rate > > > index as we dont differentiate the situation where the lowest rate > > > is chosen truely by the algorithm from this particular case. > > > > I thought about that as well, but does it really make sense for us to > > use MRR with the same lowest rate? That's why I just used one segment. > > Thoughts? > > or we can try for max_retry (4) times. In that case the rate indices of > other rates (just not 1) should be made -1 or this segment should be > moved just below the rate find. So the count should have already been set up to 4, and the next segment [1] is set to -1. Please let me know if there is anything else you see needs change. Luis