[rt2x00-users] [bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.kernel.org: [Bug 42828] rt2800pci unstable - chokes after too much I/O]

Andreas Hartmann andihartmann at 01019freenet.de
Sat Nov 17 00:58:49 AEDT 2012

Stanislaw Gruszka schrieb:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>>> Ok, I'm voting for reverting both commits:
>>> commit be03d4a45c09ee5100d3aaaedd087f19bc20d01f
>>> Author: Andreas Hartmann <andihartmann at 01019freenet.de>
>>> Date:   Tue Apr 17 00:25:28 2012 +0200
>>>     rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe fails
>>> commit f0425beda4d404a6e751439b562100b902ba9c98
>>> Author: Felix Fietkau <nbd at openwrt.org>
>>> Date:   Sun Aug 28 21:11:01 2011 +0200
>>>     mac80211: retry sending failed BAR frames later instead of tearing down aggr
>>> f0425beda is causing troubles on rt2800 because that hardware do not
>>> report BAR ack (perhaps because it is acked by BA frame not ACK frame),
>>> so we constantly send BAR frames with the same SSN. This can be hardware
>>> problem, but also if we can jump into that simulation if remote station
>>> will not ack BAR frames or due to noisy radio conditions.
> [snip]
>> Taking all these facts into consideration (and some older measurements,
>> too), the only thing I can say so far:
>> Until now, I can't say for sure, if there is any significant difference
>> between the actual situation and the proposed patches by Stanislaw. But
>> you may come to another conclusion if you analyse the measurement with
>> your know how and background.
> The goal here is to fix regression caused by commit be03d4a45c, not
> to improve performance.

Why do you think, I would think it would improve performance?


More information about the users mailing list