Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:58570 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932425Ab2F1JiZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:38:25 -0400 Received: by pbbrp8 with SMTP id rp8so2771519pbb.19 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:38:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1340875844.4491.26.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1340821557-27009-1-git-send-email-arik@wizery.com> <1340871433.4491.20.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1340875844.4491.26.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> From: Arik Nemtsov Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:38:09 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20120628_113829_177011_18FA7402) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: allow Rx in reconfig only after removing BA sessions To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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? Well if the de-aggregration is in HW, they won't make it as far as mac80211. So this patch is for SW de-aggregators. But come to think of it, if the de-aggregation is done in SW, I guess there's no real issue with accepting them, since mac80211 didn't really reboot. I guess we can drop the patch? It just seemed more correct to put the in_reconfig to false there.