On 26 February 2015 at 02:20, Jouni Malinen [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:14:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

While I realize that people may disagree about the exact details of
how to fix this in the long run, may I suggest that in the meantime we
at least get the two workaround patches applied?

quoted

Does anybody hate Jouni's two patches *so* much that they can
articulate *why* it would be wrong to apply them as interim patches?
And if so, do you have better patches for me to try? Because if not..

Of all people, I do actually have some hatred on the one-liner to force
minimum rate for all EAPOL TX attempts. That is punishing the vast
majority of cases where the AP is perfectly fine with higher MCS rates
being used (and MCS 0 being sufficient fallback option) for EAPOL. Being
able to use higher TX rates as the initial attempt is a nice feature and
even though this may be limited to number of upstream Linux drivers
today, that part of the feature is an improvement, IMHO. This can even
be more robust in some environments especially when going through long
EAP exchange with certain types of interference.

I remember running the math - well, the "airtime" math, and realised
it was almost always cheaper to do the single, non-aggregated EAPOL
frame exchange at the lowest rate than to try higher rates and fall
back to the lowest rates.




-adrian