Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-11 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 11:01 -0600, James Feeney wrote: >> @ Dan Williams >> >> > I'm not really arguing against updating mac80211 to report this >> > information if somebody actually wants to do the patch. I'm only >> >

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-09 Thread Kalle Valo
(Please don't drop me from CC) James Feeney writes: > @ Kalle Valo > >> Have you reported this on netdev (CCing linux-wireless, David Miller and >> the patch authors)? I think the offending bonding patch should be >> reverted but first it needs to be properly reported on the

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-09 Thread James Feeney
Hey Dan On 08/09/2017 12:25 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > The relevant questions, in my view, are: > > 1) why does the bonding driver now require this information? Well, it *always* required the information. Just now, Mahesh has finally decided "up with this I will not put", not being able to get

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-09 Thread Dan Williams
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 11:01 -0600, James Feeney wrote: > @ Dan Williams > > > I'm not really arguing against updating mac80211 to report this > > information if somebody actually wants to do the patch.  I'm only > > saying that even with the patch, it's not going to do exactly what > > you > >

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-09 Thread James Feeney
On 08/09/2017 03:30 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> That seems a little over-broad, at least certainly with respect to "half >> duplex". If the link is known to be half duplex, then the kernel ethtool can >> simply report that the link is "half duplex". I am not hearing a good >> justification,

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-09 Thread Dan Williams
On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 18:36 -0600, James Feeney wrote: > Hey > > On 08/08/2017 04:49 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > Some time back, I added some support to ath10k to report some > > ethtool info. > > At least most of this is upstream.  I do report rx and rx link > > rate, and yes, > > it changes,

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-09 Thread Arend van Spriel
On 8/9/2017 2:36 AM, James Feeney wrote: Hey [...] On 08/08/2017 05:43 PM, Dan Williams wrote: It's very relevant to the question. Because if the speed is actually not useful for the requested purpose, there is no real point in having it reported it via ethtool. Same for duplex. Wifi

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-08 Thread Dan Williams
On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 16:25 -0600, James Feeney wrote: > Hey Dan > > > ... > > So one second the wifi might be the "best" link and then when > > somebody > > turns on a microwave oven or a baby monitor, it may be the "worst" > > until the microwave's duty cycle completes a few seconds later then

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-08 Thread James Feeney
Hey Dan > ... > So one second the wifi might be the "best" link and then when somebody > turns on a microwave oven or a baby monitor, it may be the "worst" > until the microwave's duty cycle completes a few seconds later then > it'll become the "best" again for a couple seconds then "worst"

Re: wireless drivers fail to report link speed?

2017-08-08 Thread Dan Williams
On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 13:07 -0600, James Feeney wrote: > Hello All > > Would you please look at kernel bug report "Since 4.12 - bonding > module not > working with wireless drivers", and tell me if you know why the > kernel ethtool > does not receive a speed report from the wireless drivers? > >