Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:53194 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756137Ab0JEH5u (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 03:57:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mac80211: fix rate_control_send_low warnings for delbas From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Jouni Malinen , Luis Rodriguez , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@kernel.org" , Paul Stewart , Amod Bodas , Vasanth Thiagarajan In-Reply-To: References: <1285965233-11097-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1286198845.3620.37.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20101004164149.GE2105@tux> <1286210566.3620.42.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20101004172504.GL2105@tux> <1286213426.3620.43.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20101004173507.GN2105@tux> <20101004203900.GA14524@jm.kir.nu> <20101004224754.GA16357@jm.kir.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:57:44 +0200 Message-ID: <1286265464.3641.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 16:50 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:07:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> Jouni, just to be clear so you are fine with dropping explicitly the > >> tear down of the BA agreement to the old AP? > > > > If you are talking about not transmitting a frame, then yes, but > > obviously, we would still need to locally tear down whatever we have set > > up.. > > Sure. Right -- exactly what my (untested!!) patch did. > > I think it would be a good default policy to not send any frames to the > > old AP after we have decided to roam to a new one. If this does not work > > well in some networks, I would like to here more detailed description on > > what exactly is happening. > > No that's fine, I just was curious how the bridge stuff you described > was handled in enterprise networks, you would know better :) Look at net/mac80211/cfg.c - ieee80211_send_layer2_update. > OK -- so lets go with Johanne's patch instead of patch 2 and 3 as he > suggested :) Have you tested it? johannes