Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:33:25 +0100 From: Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@techwires.net> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, PseudoCylon <moonlightakkiy@yahoo.ca>, freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/176201: [net80211] [patch] 11n station includes unrelated ht params into ASSOC_REQ packet Message-ID: <201302221933.25718.bschmidt@techwires.net> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomCtXoDWfpc%2B-XK-xBFb7dCCzPtrLDMegCT%2BZWL1Ye=xQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201302180246.r1I2kocv064092@freefall.freebsd.org> <201302221859.31446.bschmidt@techwires.net> <CAJ-VmomCtXoDWfpc%2B-XK-xBFb7dCCzPtrLDMegCT%2BZWL1Ye=xQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:04:39 PM Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hm, we need to use MIN(rxmax) and MAX(density) regardless, right? > > If an AP is transmitting to a STA that has a lower rxmax or higher > density, it should obey that. > > The same rules apply for mesh, ibss, tdma operational modes. > > So yes, what we should do is: > > * initialise rxmax/density with the VAP capabilities > * track what the remote node rxmax/density is > * have a couple of functions that return the density and rxmax based > on the destination node and current VAP config > * teach the 11n drivers to use that. Don't make it to complex, it's one-liner, not sure it's worth a function. The STA case is handled here because there is no later position to do so, AP already told us what it is capable of (ni_htparams) now it's the STA's job to do the same. The AP case is handled somewhere else, assoc req I guess, and that just uses the VAP params to verify the limits aren't above device caps. Using plain ni_htparams after that is just fine. If also done right in STA mode, ni_htparams will always contain a value which doesn't exceed either the AP's or the STA's or the device's limits (might have to change the value exactly there), so, using it directly is fine in drivers. I don't want to get into IBSS mode just yet, it's way to complex to get my head around that atm. Though, I think, it's a per-node and not a global parameter so the handling should match that from the AP? -- Bernhard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201302221933.25718.bschmidt>