Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:46380 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750884Ab1I0HsD (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:48:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC 03/15] mac80211: also expire filtered frames From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: (sfid-20110927_003132_449210_ED324B61) References: <20110922154726.521122680@sipsolutions.net> <20110922154849.369194760@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20110927_003132_449210_ED324B61) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:47:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1317109671.4082.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20110927_094807_203582_0E0556AD) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 15:30 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > No particular comments on the code yet but latency issues has got me > thinking about the filtered frames stuff and if we really need it. How > much benefit does keeping these frames give us instead of just > dropping them? If the station goes to sleep, it'll incur latency by design. The filtered frames stuff is really just a way to close the race between giving a packet to the device and the station going to sleep -- as such I think we should really keep it. johannes