Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:61256 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751719Ab1LJPjA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:39:00 -0500 Received: by iaeh11 with SMTP id h11so360074iae.19 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:39:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1323523783-536-1-git-send-email-rmanohar@qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:38:59 -0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20111210_163903_954541_1F8247C4) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: fix max phy rate at rate control init From: Paul Stewart To: Rajkumar Manoharan Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Paul Stewart wrote: > Hi Rajkumar, > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Rajkumar Manoharan > wrote: >> The stations always chooses 1Mbps for all trasmitting frames, >> whenever the AP is configured to lock the supported rates. >> As the max phy rate is always set with the 4th from highest phy rate, >> this assumption might be wrong if we have less than that. Fix that. >> >> Cc: stable@kernel.org >> Cc: Paul Stewart >> Reported-by: Ajay Gummalla >> Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan >> --- >> ?drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.c | ? ?4 +++- >> ?1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.c >> index 888abc2..528d5f3 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.c >> @@ -1271,7 +1271,9 @@ static void ath_rc_init(struct ath_softc *sc, >> >> ? ? ? ?ath_rc_priv->max_valid_rate = k; >> ? ? ? ?ath_rc_sort_validrates(rate_table, ath_rc_priv); >> - ? ? ? ath_rc_priv->rate_max_phy = ath_rc_priv->valid_rate_index[k-4]; >> + ? ? ? ath_rc_priv->rate_max_phy = (k > 4) ? >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ath_rc_priv->valid_rate_index[k-4] : >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ath_rc_priv->valid_rate_index[k-1]; > > Is k guaranteed > 1 here? ?Some test equipment export only one rate so > we lock in to a single rate. I'm not sure how this would factor into > the k value here. Sorry, I get what you're doing here. Carry on as if I didn't say anything. :-) >> ? ? ? ?ath_rc_priv->rate_table = rate_table; >> >> ? ? ? ?ath_dbg(common, ATH_DBG_CONFIG, >> -- >> 1.7.8 >>