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 <[email protected]> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
