From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754608AbYKBVAj (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:00:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754113AbYKBVAa (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:00:30 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f12.google.com ([209.85.217.12]:53992 "EHLO mail-gx0-f12.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754118AbYKBVA3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:00:29 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=x02VI+u2WYMBWGEXvwzNMIPT1zxn/H7Q8UdNldXLtomvg/QLryrdf/RBxemtoVi4ff 0RxYEVf92/sy9Akr4misi5a2HtufzkSdHOaa48eGAt44+8licXHEgpSBaFwY8rAaTReV ElW7Pg675apXaTGLqAv9wVOeKAxSQ0cHQrggI= Message-ID: <43e72e890811021300o6bef49b0i515d0f72974cef00@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:00:27 -0800 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Bob Copeland" Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH] ath5k: fix detection of jumbo frames Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, mickflemm@gmail.com, jirislaby@gmail.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, michael+ath5k@stapelberg.de In-Reply-To: <1225652938-6244-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1225652938-6244-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7298e991ece63b3f Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Bob Copeland wrote: Nice find. > Then, because the hw rate value of such frames is zero BTW I believe frames should not go out at hw rate value 0, I did some test a while back on this rate and its not exactly reliable, you will get very funky behavior on it. Are you seeing that rate being used on legacy-hal? Last I asked about it too its not something people know about as being desired effect. I could be wrong but it'd be interesting to see where this is used correctly. >, and, since > 63266a653589e1a237527479f10212ea77ce7844 "ath5k: rates cleanup", we do not fall back to the basic rate, such packets would trigger > the following WARN_ON: So its slow because using rate 0 takes a while? If indeed you don't see a valid use for this rate I'd say to completely disallow it and use BUG_ON() on it. Luis