Return-path: Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:57697 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750975Ab0I3Rxk (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:53:40 -0400 Received: by gye5 with SMTP id 5so791504gye.19 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:53:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1285781138.3756.29.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <20100928222945.GB10932@tux> <1285748303.3756.19.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1285781138.3756.29.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:53:19 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: fix rate_control_send_low warnings for delbas To: Johannes Berg Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, stable@kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Paul Stewart , Amod Bodas , Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan , Jouni Malinen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 10:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > I really think that can be done more easily though. For one, clearly we >> > already have the warning, so we don't need more infrastructure to catch >> > such errors?! >> >> This is true, I just added that to ensure I hit these when testing >> really, I can nuke the counter, but it can help if eventually believe >> we have a proper fix to allow these frames through somehow too. >> >> > Also, this may end up hiding issues that we don't yet >> > understand, like the nullfunc one you were talking about. >> >> Yeah, good point, although I am under the impression this is a similar >> situation, we probably try to send a nullfunc to notify the old AP we >> are going to go awake if we are transmitting data while roaming. But >> yeah, its not easily triggerable yet. >> >> > The delBA one >> > we now understand fully, so it makes more sense to simply suppress >> > sending delBA when we are going to disassociate by way of associating >> > with a new AP, no? >> >> That's reasonable but we will still need the channel, otherwise how >> would we know its this issue? > > Why do we care? We can just always suppress sending the delba when we > get into _set_disassoc() from mgd_assoc(), no? Yeah, and I actually think I found another race with this code, I'm going to try something a bit different now. Luis