On Monday 12 March 2012 09:25 PM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:

Hi Ben,

On Monday 12 March 2012 08:53 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:22 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:

quoted

Hi Willy,

quoted

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:06:23AM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
wrote:

quoted

quoted

So I'm pretty sure this patch is wrong for 2.6.32; it could be
backported but I don't think the change is necessary anyway.

true, but i think its better to initialize the count = 0 rather than
count = 1, though the older version driver checks for rate[i].idx>= 0
in ath_rc_tx_status. while the ath_tx_status has no such iteration in
the older driver code.

In practice, if the patch brings nothing and not even correctness, I'd
rather drop it than make us believe that some issue is fixed. However
if you think it does happen to fix a real issue in 2.6.32 (possibly
combined with some other missing patch), please tell me so and I will
happily undelete it.

we can drop it. also as there was no driver code checking for
rate[i].count in the 2.6.32 driver. i am also not sure this fixes
something in 2.6.32 but the patch itself is correct.

[...]

Please read and answer the *whole* of my earlier message. The later
code in the rate_control_get_rate() function in 2.6.32 does appear to
depend on .count = 1, and there may be code elsewhere that does so too.

are you referring to those code in tx.c ieee80211_tx_h_rate_control.
sorry if i had again missed something.

if you are referring to that rate[0].count should be definitely 
non-zero. at least the first rate should be non-zero as the drivers rate 
control algorithm should properly fill it up, or mac80211's 
rate_control_send_low should fill it up by 1 for 'no ack frames'
(or)  max retries set by the driver for other frames(recently NULL func
  is added connection monitoring frame whose status will be needed).

-- 
thanks,
shafi