From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:43102 "EHLO mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126Ab3CEQMn (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:12:43 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 12so6004081wgh.19 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 08:12:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:10:03 +0100 From: Karl Beldan To: Felix Fietkau Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless , Karl Beldan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mac80211: get the rates masks from the txrc in rate_control_get_rate Message-ID: <20130305161003.GA30419@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com> (sfid-20130305_171248_862405_E133C07C) References: <1362421635-28008-1-git-send-email-karl.beldan@gmail.com> <1362427924.21028.42.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130304204541.GA8819@gobelin> <5135F327.4000408@openwrt.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <5135F327.4000408@openwrt.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:11PM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2013-03-04 9:45 PM, john wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:12:04PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 19:27 +0100, Karl Beldan wrote: > >> > From: Karl Beldan > >> > > >> > Currently it gets it from the sdata. This uses and updates the ad-hoc > >> > masks of the ieee80211_tx_rate_control instead of copying them. > >> > >> Is there any need to update them? > >> > >> The change for "mask" seems to make it less efficient since it could > >> otherwise be put into a register. > >> > > Totally, this commit spares the 10bytes copy of mcs_mask but adds a less > > efficient indirection to mask. > > I thought of it but kept the symmetry with mcs_mask. > > Apparently you wouldn't mind the dissymmetry so I will re-send using mask > > by value, plus I wrote "updates .." where it is more like "lets the > > ad-hoc masks get overwritten". > It seems to me that all of this could be made more efficient by default > if a mcs mask pointer is only passed to rate control if the user > actually configured a MCS mask. Also, filtering out rates from the mask > that the sta does not support seems a bit unnecessary, since the rate > control usually looks at the HT capabilities and the sta's mcs rx mask > anyway. > Yes, some things look a bit overkill in the masks logic. Karl