Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:61114 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752627Ab0JERDt (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 13:03:49 -0400 Received: by iwn5 with SMTP id 5so8545603iwn.19 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:03:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1286265464.3641.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> 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> <1286265464.3641.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:03:28 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mac80211: fix rate_control_send_low warnings for delbas To: Johannes Berg Cc: Jouni Malinen , Luis Rodriguez , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@kernel.org" , Paul Stewart , Amod Bodas , Vasanth Thiagarajan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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? Tested, it works and resolves the issue if I drop my patch 2 and 3 and instead use yours. Luis