Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:46431 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753912Ab1DZTgK (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:36:10 -0400 Received: by mail-iw0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 34so787546iwn.19 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:36:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110426191247.GJ2804@tuxdriver.com> References: <1303125749-31967-1-git-send-email-arik@wizery.com> <1303129610.3588.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1303216566.3603.6.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1303286933.3619.0.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20110426191247.GJ2804@tuxdriver.com> From: Arik Nemtsov Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:35:55 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20110426_213614_458738_17669453) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mac80211: allow low level drivers to report packet loss To: "John W. Linville" Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Luciano Coelho Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 22:12, John W. Linville wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:08:53AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 00:54 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote: >> >> > > That's your choice, but I wouldn't do it. You'll have to support TX >> > > status when requested, otherwise AP operation won't work, so you need >> > > the code anyway. >> > >> > Can you elaborate why? >> > >> > I'm assuming you mean the removal of >> > IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS (in the second patch of this >> > series). Note that it was only added recently, and AP/STA modes seemed >> > to work fine without it. >> > From a look in the code it seems this flag helps with connection >> > monitoring in STA mode. The other use is determining the current PS >> > mode when IEEE80211_HW_PS_NULLFUNC_STACK is enabled. These two are >> > done by HW in wl12xx cards. >> >> Well, there's the flag saying "you can rely on it", but there's also the >> fact that AP mode relies on status for (some) frames anyway. So if you >> just want to remove the flag I guess that's OK, but if you want to >> remove all status processing .. that'll cause issues with AP mode. > > Do the wl12xx guys still want this? > Yes definitely. The above is a discussion about providing reliable TX status to certain packets. It's not really related. But Johannes has a point here and it was noted. Regards, Arik