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 Weltehttp://laforge.gnumonks.org/
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
