Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:45281 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758125Ab2F1Jas (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:30:48 -0400 Message-ID: <1340875844.4491.26.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120628_113051_794910_0B091AE1) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: allow Rx in reconfig only after removing BA sessions From: Johannes Berg To: Arik Nemtsov Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:30:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20120628_103758_593069_FB3D8FF9) References: <1340821557-27009-1-git-send-email-arik@wizery.com> <1340871433.4491.20.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120628_103758_593069_FB3D8FF9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 11:37 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Johannes Berg > wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 21:25 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote: > >> Previously, a connected STA/AP could send us some AMPDUs right after > >> recovery, without the driver knowing anything about it. > > > > Huh, that description doesn't make a lot of sense? The STA/AP can send > > us AMPDUs anyway without the driver knowing anything about it since it > > has no idea we're restarting ... > > Well the point is to drop them early in the Rx path. Should I change > the description or you don't like the patch in general? I don't mind the patch, I just don't quite understand it still. The driver is receiving the AMPDUs anyway, and if it's passing them up why do we need to drop them? johannes