Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 15:03 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > >> So, what's the point of this "excessive retries" field anyway? >> We already have an "acked" bit. So if it's not set, but we expected an >> ack, what's the point of setting excessive retries in the driver? >> the rc algo sould know _anyway_, as it has the "acked" and the >> "we wanted to have an ack" bits. > > No idea. I guess you get to dig through the code and remove it ;)
When I first started investigating the problem of mac80211 not reducing the rate as I moved away from the AP, it seemed to me that the decision regarding excessive retries should be made in mac80211, not in the driver; however, I have had extreme difficulty in getting any changes into mac80211 on several occasions. Linville assures me that he has had private discussions about this problem; however, I needed a quick fix and couldn't stand any protracted discussion and/or review delays. I knew Michael would be tough, but that his comments would not be delayed. At the moment, I have more pressing matters to resolve than fixing this problem in mac80211; however, I feel really good that the port of bcm43xx-softmac to mac80211 has this issue. Larry _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
