Hi Neels,

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:22:28PM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> I'm on the load-based handover patches: it is adding a second handover 
> decision
> algorithm. What keeps slightly itching me about it is that it is not really
> cleanly separate from the first (current) handover algorithm.

I think it's not worth worrying too much about that.

> The point being, if we add a third, fourth, fifth HO algo at some point, this
> would probably become a tad intransparent.

I think we can leave it as the burden to whoever will implement / contribute 
such additional
algorithms for the time being.  Our goal is to get Jolly's pending patches of a 
few
years finally merged, and not delay this by another month or so to invent new 
infrastructure
for hypothetical future additional algorithms.

> Do we want separate sets of parameters for ho1 and ho2? For example, for the
> rxlev window averaging, is it better to have one setting used for both ho1 and
> ho2, or do I expect each algo to remember its own rxlev averaging settings?

Let's keep it like it is (shared parameters shared, specific parameters 
specific)
 
-- 
- Harald Welte <lafo...@gnumonks.org>           http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

Reply via email to