Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:06:34 -0600
From:   Kevin Locke <kevin@kevinlocke.name>
To:     "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
Cc:     linuxwifi@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [linuxwifi] [RFC] iwlwifi: enable TX AMPDU for some iwldvm
Message-ID: <20190313150634.GA10043@kevinolos>
Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Locke <kevin@kevinlocke.name>,
        "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
        linuxwifi@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
References: <20190312171205.GA12792@kevinolos>
 <0f9132187a5567fa94e396ed317efbae1aa4de14.camel@intel.com>
 <1b6eaef941d3bc887a9fbedea47c2677e5511cdd.camel@intel.com>
 <20190312203101.GA19902@kevinolos>
 <58bd45ab11912eef5c809427449a31800ecdbf53.camel@intel.com>
 <20190312214445.GA20993@kevinolos>
 <cdd094bd29f1e20dc5577fcbad6a7b404e66407a.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cdd094bd29f1e20dc5577fcbad6a7b404e66407a.camel@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 04:58 +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> Just to align on expectations, I don't feel like enable A-MPDU by
> default regardless of what will come out of this. People stopped
> complaining after we disabled A-MPDU and the very very very few people
> that did need more throughput knew how to enable them with the module
> parameter. So, I don't plan to re-enable A-MPDU by default.

I understand.  I disagree that very few people would benefit from
nearly doubling TCP throughput or that the fix is known/obvious.
However, if it's not worth the risk and/or effort, or there is no
reliable way to determine which devices/configurations are unaffected,
so be it.  Resources are limited and that's totally understandable.

Let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist.

Thanks,
Kevin