Chenchong's work on net80211_ratectl

[Chenchong Qin]

My pleasure!

It's also against HEAD.

Thanks!


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> cool!
>
> Would you mind posting an updated diff?
>
>
>
> -adrian
>
> On 24 July 2013 01:39, Chenchong Qin <qinchenchong at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Thanks for your constructive feedback!
> >
> > First, I've done some renaming things. IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_* became
> > IEEE80211_RATECTL_CAP_* and options in ieee80211_ratectl became
> > ir_capabilities.
> >
> > As for max4msframelen , I re-added this field and also ported
> > ath_max_4ms_framelen[4][32] to ieee80211_ratectl.
> >
> > An error is also corrected (about initialization of ir_capabilities).
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> * Why do you have IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_MULTXCHAIN ?
> >
> >
> > IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_MULTXCHAIN is used in
> ieee80211_ratectl_hascap_stbc()
> > to assist the determination of whether we can enable STBC.
> >
> >> * The reason why I check both the vap/ic and the node bits for HT
> >> capabilities is that they're negotiated. The node bits are what the
> >> remote peer supports. The vap/ic bits are what the local device/vap
> >> supports. So, if the remote node supports STBC and the local node
> >> doesn't, we shouldn't try transmitting short-GI.
> >
> >
> > uh... I also do the "double check" stuff. Do the
> ieee80211_ratectl_hascap_*
> > functions do
> > wrong things? And, I'm not very clear about the relation between STBC and
> > short-GI now.
> > It seems that I need some further reading. :)
> >
> >>
> >> * In ieee80211_ratectl_complete_rcflags(), enabling RTS/CTS but not
> >> transmitting an 11n rate isn't "right." The 11n hardware supports
> >> per-rate RTS/CTS for non-HT rates. You have to ensure that works.
> >> You've added a capability bit for this (IEEE80211_RATECTL_OPT_MRRPROT)
> >> so you should use it.
> >
> >
> > Yeah... here my logic messed up. It's corrected.
> >
> >>
> >> * the new rate field "options" should be "ir_options", like how the
> >> rest of the fields are prefixed with ir_
> >> * .. and, nitpicking, it should be "ir_capabilities".
> >>
> >
> > It's already done.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Chenchong
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20130724-net80211-ratectl.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 9363 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-wireless/attachments/20130724/7813bc42/attachment.obj>