Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:20:58 +0100 | From | Stanislaw Gruszka <> | Subject | Re: [ 104/173] rt2x00: Dont let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe fails |
| |
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 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 Revert: "rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe fails" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> and I'm intending to drop/defer them all. > >>>>> > >>>>> Patch 3 is a revert of patch 1 (questioned patch). Please apply all 3 patches, > >>>>> or only patch 2. > >>>> > >>>> No, actually all 3 patches have to be applied. Because last one, except > >>>> revert, include flag IEEE80211_HW_TEARDOWN_AGGR_ON_BAR_FAIL setting in rt2x00 > >>>> driver, which make patch 2 work. > >>> > >>> Andreas said that that after ab9d6e4ffe19 there was still a regression. > > > > That's not true. There will be no regression after ab9d6e4ffe20. The > > only thing is that solution is not perfect. But perfect solution require > > lot of changes i.e. is not -stable appropriate (and does not exist currently). > > > >>> But maybe he was confused. I know I'm confused. > >> :-)) > >> > >> No, the thing is: > >> rt2800pci misses an appropriate handling of aggregation (which meets the > >> requirements of mac80211). > >> > >> Both workarounds, mine and the new workaround from Stanislaw (which is > >> nothing more than a restricted version of my initial workaround), work > > > > Your workaround broke STA mode on some environment. > > Why are you sure, that this workaround doesn't break some other devices > running in AP mode? We believed at that time too, it wouldn't harm even > STA. But this was wrong for some (which?) devices.
Because it make behaviour the same as it was before 3.2, which introduce those issues.
Stanislaw
| |