From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2220489848090329614==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] scan: rework BSS ranking Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 10:00:47 -0500 Message-ID: <59d5f498-f319-1dd1-755e-b8df66b48c0b@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20210507202620.93540-2-prestwoj@gmail.com> List-Id: To: iwd@lists.01.org --===============2220489848090329614== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi James, On 5/7/21 3:26 PM, James Prestwood wrote: > It was observed that IWD's ranking for BSS's did not always > end up with the fastest being chosen. This was due to IWD's > heavy weight on signal strength. This is a decent way of ranking > but even better is calculating a theoretical data rate which > was also done and factored in. The problem is the data rate > factor was always outdone by the signal strength. > = > Intead remove signal strength entirely as this is already taken > into account with the data rate calculation. This also removes > the check for rate IEs. If no IEs are found the parser will > base the data rate soley on RSSI. > = > There were a few other factors removed which will be added back > when ranking *networks* rather than BSS's. WPA version (or open) > was removed as well as the privacy capability. These values really > should not differ between BSS's in the same SSID and as such > should be used for network ranking instead. > --- > src/scan.c | 63 ++++++++++++++---------------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > = > v2: > * Added support for BSS's that did not have any rate IEs by > using the same ie_parse_data_rates > = I went ahead and applied the rest of this series (2-4). Regards, -Denis --===============2220489848090329614==--