On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 20:20 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:38:35PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> > Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> > >> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 20:20 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:38:35PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw
Hello Stanislaw!
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:38:35PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:38:35PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> >> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM
Hello Helmut!
Helmut Schaa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Hartmann
> wrote:
>> The solution would be IMHO, to implement an own aggregation handling,
>> maybe the same way as it was done for carl9170, which had the same problem:
>>
>>
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>> To be clear, I have all of these in
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
>
>
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Hartmann
wrote:
> The solution would be IMHO, to implement an own aggregation handling,
> maybe the same way as it was done for carl9170, which had the same problem:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/100793/focus=1405
>
> I
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
> > >
> > > be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
> > > fails
> > >
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
> >
> > be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
> > fails
> > 5b632fe85ec8 mac80211: introduce IEEE80211_HW_TEARDOWN_AGGR_ON_BAR_FAIL
> >
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:18:21AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> >> To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
> >>
> >> be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
>>
>> be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
>> fails
>> 5b632fe85ec8 mac80211: introduce
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 13:38 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 09:04 +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> > > Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
> > > >
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 13:38 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 09:04 +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
know.
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
fails
5b632fe85ec8 mac80211: introduce IEEE80211_HW_TEARDOWN_AGGR_ON_BAR_FAIL
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:18:21AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
fails
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
fails
5b632fe85ec8 mac80211: introduce IEEE80211_HW_TEARDOWN_AGGR_ON_BAR_FAIL
ab9d6e4ffe19
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
fails
5b632fe85ec8 mac80211:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe
fails
5b632fe85ec8
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Hartmann
andihartm...@01019freenet.de wrote:
The solution would be IMHO, to implement an own aggregation handling,
maybe the same way as it was done for carl9170, which had the same problem:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
Hello Helmut!
Helmut Schaa wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Hartmann
andihartm...@01019freenet.de wrote:
The solution would be IMHO, to implement an own aggregation handling,
maybe the same way as it was done for carl9170, which had the same problem:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:38:35PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw
Hello Stanislaw!
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:38:35PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Mon, Jan
On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 13:38 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 09:04 +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
> > > know.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > From: Andreas Hartmann
On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 09:04 +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > --
> >
> > From: Andreas Hartmann
> >
> > commit be03d4a45c09ee5100d3aaaedd087f19bc20d01f upstream.
>
>
On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 09:04 +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Andreas Hartmann andihartm...@01019freenet.de
commit be03d4a45c09ee5100d3aaaedd087f19bc20d01f
On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 13:38 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 09:04 +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
know.
--
From: Andreas Hartmann
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> --
>
> From: Andreas Hartmann
>
> commit be03d4a45c09ee5100d3aaaedd087f19bc20d01f upstream.
[...]
This patch is a workaround for
mac80211: retry sending failed BAR frames
Ben Hutchings wrote:
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Andreas Hartmann andihartm...@01019freenet.de
commit be03d4a45c09ee5100d3aaaedd087f19bc20d01f upstream.
[...]
This patch is a workaround for
mac80211: retry
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Andreas Hartmann
commit be03d4a45c09ee5100d3aaaedd087f19bc20d01f upstream.
There are connection stalls or very poor throughputs with rt2800
hardware using 802.11n in AP mode since patch
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Andreas Hartmann andihartm...@01019freenet.de
commit be03d4a45c09ee5100d3aaaedd087f19bc20d01f upstream.
There are connection stalls or very poor throughputs with rt2800
hardware using 802.11n
34 matches
Mail list logo