Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:64995 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752809Ab1K2Wqu convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:46:50 -0500 Received: by faaq16 with SMTP id q16so196938faa.19 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:46:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1322606159.11282.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1322533625-24641-1-git-send-email-mar.kolya@gmail.com> <1322555084.4110.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1322579973.4110.22.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1322604877.11282.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1322606159.11282.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:46:48 -0500 Message-ID: (sfid-20111129_234654_147714_26544437) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: reset addba retries after timeout From: Nikolay Martynov To: Johannes Berg Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2011/11/29 Johannes Berg : > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 17:28 -0500, Nikolay Martynov wrote: >> Hi. >> >> 2011/11/29 Johannes Berg : >> > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 17:01 -0500, Nikolay Martynov wrote: >> > >> >> >> ? Do APs broken is such way exist? I.e. APs which declare aggregation >> >> >> support but do not respond to addba. >> >> > >> >> > I seem to remember something ... not really sure. >> >> >> >> ? If such APs exist I think it might be possible to extend my patch to >> >> do something like the following. For the first time make 10 attempts >> >> to establish addba. If this fails - make no more attempts for the >> >> duration of the connection. If this succeeds - use logic I've added in >> >> the patch. This should handle broken APs and won't allow agg to be >> >> disable because of some random blackout. >> > >> > Wouldn't that be equivalent to just bumping the number of tries? >> >> ? Well, sort of if you are willing to bump it to 10-15, I guess it >> would be kind of same thing. >> ? I've seen couple of times when 3 wasn't enough and agg got disabled, >> but 10-15 seems reasonably large to give up completely. > > Maybe the better approach would be to bump it up, but also only allow an > attempt once every say 15 seconds or so? It seems kinda useless to try 3 > (or 10/15) times in quick succession and then give up, vs. just trying > more spaced out? Makes sense to me. Although I would left first 2-3 go quickly in case first was lost due to random glitch there is no reason to wait 15 seconds. But if first 2-3 fail - it make sense split next apart, I think. -- Truthfully yours, Martynov Nikolay. Email: mar.kolya@gmail.com