Wojciech Dubowik <[email protected]> writes: > Add debugfs entries to corrupt specified frame types > by invering fcs field upon transmissionm with given probability. > > Select frames to be corrupted. > <ath9k_debugs>/corrupt_fcs_fram_mask: > Bit 16 - Null function > Bit 15 - QoS Null function > Bit 14 - EAPOL > Bit 13 - Action > Bit 12 - Deauthentication > Bit 11 - Authentication > Bit 10 - Disassociation > Bit 9 - ATIM > Bit 8 - Beacon > Bit 5 - Probe response > Bit 4 - Probe request > Bit 3 - Reassociation response > Bit 2 - Reassociation request > Bit 1 - Association response > Bit 0 - Association request > > Select corruption probability: > <ath9k_debugs>/corrupt_fcs_prob: 0(0%) to 255(100%) > > Signed-off-by: Wojciech Dubowik <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Kconfig | 15 +++++ > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h | 7 ++ > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/debug.c | 51 ++++++++++++++ > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c | 117 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 190 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Kconfig > b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Kconfig > index 8f231c6..ca50f0f 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Kconfig > @@ -95,6 +95,21 @@ config ATH9K_TX99 > be evaluated to meet the RF exposure limits set forth in the > governmental SAR regulations. > > +config ATH9K_FRAME_LOSS_SIMULATOR > + bool "Atheros ath9k frame loss simulator" > + depends on ATH9K && ATH9K_DEBUGFS && DEBUG_FS > + default n > + ---help--- > + Say N. This option should be used only to test fail paths > + and timeouts by inverting fcs field of selected frames to > + be transmitted. > + Which frames are corrupted is marked by bitfield in > + corrupt_fcs_frame_mask debug entry and probability of > + of corruption in corrupt_fcs_prob (0-255). Zero means > + disabled and writing 255 makes all selected frames fail. > + Management, EAPOL, and Null function frames are > + supported.
Why a separate Kconfig option? Does this significantly increase memory consumption or something? I ask because we should be conservative when adding new Kconfig options. -- Kalle Valo
