My pleasure! It's also against HEAD.
Thanks! On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> wrote: > cool! > > Would you mind posting an updated diff? > > > > -adrian > > On 24 July 2013 01:39, Chenchong Qin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > Thanks for your constructive feedback! > > > > First, I've done some renaming things. IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_* became > > IEEE80211_RATECTL_CAP_* and options in ieee80211_ratectl became > > ir_capabilities. > > > > As for max4msframelen , I re-added this field and also ported > > ath_max_4ms_framelen[4][32] to ieee80211_ratectl. > > > > An error is also corrected (about initialization of ir_capabilities). > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> * Why do you have IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_MULTXCHAIN ? > > > > > > IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_MULTXCHAIN is used in > ieee80211_ratectl_hascap_stbc() > > to assist the determination of whether we can enable STBC. > > > >> * The reason why I check both the vap/ic and the node bits for HT > >> capabilities is that they're negotiated. The node bits are what the > >> remote peer supports. The vap/ic bits are what the local device/vap > >> supports. So, if the remote node supports STBC and the local node > >> doesn't, we shouldn't try transmitting short-GI. > > > > > > uh... I also do the "double check" stuff. Do the > ieee80211_ratectl_hascap_* > > functions do > > wrong things? And, I'm not very clear about the relation between STBC and > > short-GI now. > > It seems that I need some further reading. :) > > > >> > >> * In ieee80211_ratectl_complete_rcflags(), enabling RTS/CTS but not > >> transmitting an 11n rate isn't "right." The 11n hardware supports > >> per-rate RTS/CTS for non-HT rates. You have to ensure that works. > >> You've added a capability bit for this (IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_MRRPROT) > >> so you should use it. > > > > > > Yeah... here my logic messed up. It's corrected. > > > >> > >> * the new rate field "options" should be "ir_options", like how the > >> rest of the fields are prefixed with ir_ > >> * .. and, nitpicking, it should be "ir_capabilities". > >> > > > > It's already done. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Chenchong > > > > >
20130724-net80211-ratectl.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
