Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:38206 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965734AbaKNWkX (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:40:23 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ex7so4150777wid.0 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:40:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:40:18 +0100 From: Karl Beldan To: Jouni Malinen Cc: Johannes Berg , Karl Beldan , linux-wireless , Felix Fietkau Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mac80211: minstrel_ht: add basic support for VHT rates <= 3SS@80MHz Message-ID: <20141114224018.GB14439@gobelin> (sfid-20141114_234028_966237_3A18242B) References: <1413812762-6605-5-git-send-email-karl.beldan@gmail.com> <1413880718-31273-1-git-send-email-karl.beldan@gmail.com> <20141114164328.GA30967@w1.fi> <20141114171832.GA16541@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com> <20141114173648.GA31675@w1.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <20141114173648.GA31675@w1.fi> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:36:48PM +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 06:18:32PM +0100, Karl Beldan wrote: > > Yes, only with iw and nothing fancy, I also have had it running on some > > boards for some weeks as is and with rfc version for more than a year at > > work (minstrel not the whole tree). > > I guess I can take the tip of wireless-testing but can you give your > > HEAD though ? > > It looks like pretty much any snapshot between master-2014-11-04 and now > is affected.. Anyway, the current master snapshot in my tests was > 0e204e2422876c18034ca960c4fccf727a02a5c1. > I tried to trigger the warning with it and nfc_p2p_* (even looping with stop.sh; start.sh; run-tests.py nfc_p2p_*), to no avail, the tests are successful and 0 warning. I'll see if anything stands out in the code tomorrow. Karl > > > For example, with nfc_p2p_go_neg test case: > > > > Have you reproduced it with other testcases (maybe more regular so that > > I can get my hands on it faster) ? > > Is it also happening when VHT support is not advertized by upper layers > > ? > > This seems to be specific to exact timing of frames since the same issue > does not show up in non-NFC P2P test cases. So no, this does not show up > with anything else than the nfc_p2p_* test cases (well, at least not in > my desktop+kvm setup; YMMV with other CPU speeds that could potentially > affect timing): > nfc_p2p_go_neg > nfc_p2p_go_neg_reverse > nfc_p2p_ip_addr_assignment > nfc_p2p_static_handover_tagdev_client > nfc_p2p_static_handover_tagdev_client_group_iface > nfc_p2p_static_handover_tagdev_go > > I'd assume the key here is in P2P with NFC trigger having the fastest > possible connection process due to all the optimizations in channel > selection on WPS (which is those EAPOL Data frames that hit these rate > selection issues immediately after association). > > That said, if you use the tests/hwsim scripts from > git://w1.fi/hostap.git there should be no difference on running some of > these cases vs. something more regular.. > > If you have not used these test scripts previously, you can find more > information about the setup here: > http://w1.fi/cgit/hostap/plain/tests/hwsim/README > http://w1.fi/cgit/hostap/plain/tests/hwsim/vm/README > > -- > Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA