Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:40701 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754698Ab0JNOu0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:50:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] Add a function for evaluating rate changes for possible notification From: Johannes Berg To: Paul Stewart Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1287066750.4641.439.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <20101013224851.B8E5D20465@glenhelen.mtv.corp.google.com> <1287064265.4641.435.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1287066750.4641.439.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:51:09 +0200 Message-ID: <1287067869.4641.440.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 16:32 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > I wonder if "rate" is really the best interface for this. Since it's a > threshold event, does it matter? Maybe there should instead be events > for MCS changes and legacy rate changes so we can avoid all those > calculations? In fact, since you'd only care about changes across a threshold etc, not the absolute rate, you might be able to build the system without ever doing the expensive rate calculation from MCS. johannes