Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp2403431yba; Mon, 6 May 2019 05:37:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxzp61lNGIYEZdfdc/MPcuX3YR2Pu9Ms4raLBUaB+I+K5fwwRw7w0OecAid9hzzIxLj9iCr X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:4683:: with SMTP id p3mr30909877pld.42.1557146254310; Mon, 06 May 2019 05:37:34 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1557146254; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=eTWlN3Em830ldUlsD7k4S6aKBhawAH9f/FpiHbBcLmTWvz3w2jX/6UEZa+nNTY6lCb DWW9sUJfXoDucVilRNftUx15QH8wNNnraJt7QAbIf5+uWjUZAJzU0cLQqnBsYnEpTWVe dZxkFStDnh5TEu4eUEhNGw3Gy6N52RoKvvFAIAyazhYXL99nZOWPNA3Jau8RZVsg7bV6 vsPq8X270UuyIMYxOgLw4u+SRbT43A1z7tAkbrbhFEx5Qa01muoRbo8ljNIW3TXcOBpp G27cOeKbE6fOjlnxMf/v4qpp4a2ztHdmhBSlMUKIlm9A+4phRJeATp5vQjtNNEf64TAJ mMsw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:subject:cc:to:from:dmarc-filter :dkim-signature:dkim-signature; bh=hCbc//mC8LLl+hKTP33bPSlLIp0jAHAKskBz+MFYjig=; b=mmxYvmjAiNCnyKbP8ZSd/NfgyghPVzKCyBjdAzyVVO9Ifi/UucOSnCDwZr+qRho4Wb rwKuVlGV0ca0XVXq6U/ykdU2ZAvk4fBSOjATck0uOI5oEM92Ba8DLR5Rimk/ivt+dppU 3XdBK1ysEEt4LhmYQRhyZfg1/Fvly8Iu2ZA1Nmk9/jYFuEX0WBUjyW/Mkar1nJq5ttay VlBKBnVyGgBKDC+pOazn4el3CO+SMPxv0NZCnc400c3Qa8DjuZVnleCdd8ZmaGi0m9US zkCWpBI8Xb2CecSlBGqAzXW+VBMAWqZ3LJtg13kwW2om1h14LGMR/18F/xJAKJ4i2Fqu uHAA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@codeaurora.org header.s=default header.b=kupzxsCM; dkim=pass header.i=@codeaurora.org header.s=default header.b=LQEN6T6e; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q3si15525818plb.266.2019.05.06.05.37.18; Mon, 06 May 2019 05:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@codeaurora.org header.s=default header.b=kupzxsCM; dkim=pass header.i=@codeaurora.org header.s=default header.b=LQEN6T6e; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726250AbfEFMfK (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 6 May 2019 08:35:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:59996 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725853AbfEFMfJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2019 08:35:09 -0400 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 726FD60A00; Mon, 6 May 2019 12:35:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1557146108; bh=Sl1Jad6J9aoFlZ5p3cIAH0XrZsM7leN/gWNTry1oNl0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kupzxsCMPJz1OH2Jm/fvkw9sC3uslA3KRNjKpLbGielzd56tqLfDPQ9SduNqgnwlI QepGhTQqp4IVTx13C1xAu+SDDZy3oJ9nohw4MYeRBbmCfbdIzN2VWbeMXvf1PkGqAN RbDFV9BLIbH+oIC86SsiL5SGabG/cUqGLi+UMjhk= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=2.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from x230.qca.qualcomm.com (85-76-75-57-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.75.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo@smtp.codeaurora.org) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 405B560A05; Mon, 6 May 2019 12:35:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1557146107; bh=Sl1Jad6J9aoFlZ5p3cIAH0XrZsM7leN/gWNTry1oNl0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LQEN6T6ejOd98MpjGhQHprdRlBftPBHporEqGxDCWujiGfhsFlXF3K6fh3ttsMECQ D03UVVbjBAjRNmcB9qWRjy9mAGvPpsKp8WUBDWAuV4nGn0+fa0GEt1dIcIoplwjcfP 8hyGh2/EVfW20F5yFTkASNDkkO3KfUTNcckxOvbE= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 405B560A05 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Tony Chuang Cc: "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] rtw88: fix unassigned rssi_level in rtw_sta_info References: <1556884415-23474-1-git-send-email-yhchuang@realtek.com> <1556884415-23474-5-git-send-email-yhchuang@realtek.com> <874l68vuhi.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 15:35:03 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Tony Chuang's message of "Mon, 6 May 2019 08:54:14 +0000") Message-ID: <874l67vk08.fsf@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Tony Chuang writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kalle Valo [mailto:kvalo@codeaurora.org] >> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2019 4:49 PM >> To: Tony Chuang >> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] rtw88: fix unassigned rssi_level in rtw_sta_info >> >> writes: >> >> > From: Yan-Hsuan Chuang >> > >> > The new rssi_level should be stored in si, otherwise the rssi_level will >> > never be updated and get a wrong RA mask, which is calculated by the >> > rssi level >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang >> >> Stanislaw suggested that this should go to 5.2. So what breaks from >> user's point of view if this is not applied? >> > > If the rssi level remains unchanged, then we could choose wrong ra_mask. > And some *bad rates* we be chosen by firmware. > The most hurtful scene would be *noisy environment* such as office, or public. > The latency would be high and overall throughput would be only half. > (This was tested, such as 4x Mbps -> 1x Mbps) Yeah, then this is definitely suitable for 5.2. Could you please resend the patch and mention the symtomps in the commit log? And mark the patch as "[PATCH 5.2 v3]" so that I can easily see it's for v5.2, please. -- Kalle Valo