From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailhost.actiasodielec.fr ([89.91.64.97]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1X0YSZ-0003KB-8c for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:53:08 +0000 From: Vu Hai NGUYEN Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:52:27 +0200 Subject: RE : Warning message in bridge mode Message-ID: References: <1399565896-29791-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <53972984.8020303@candelatech.com> <53988C53.6030806@candelatech.com> <539A0C06.6050105@candelatech.com> <539B2F21.3020609@candelatech.com> <539F0393.1090009@candelatech.com> <53A89D2E.6010708@candelatech.com>, , <53A994F7.6090707@candelatech.com> , <53AC2F78.7080307@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: <53AC2F78.7080307@candelatech.com> Content-Language: fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Ben Greear Cc: Patrick CARNEIRO RODRIGUEZ , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Bruno Antunes >It would not be easy for me to do that. While you found a single patch that >fixed the crash for you, I believe it is also dependent on many patches that >came before that one as well. >For your throughput tests, are you using UDP or TCP? You might try TCP in >case you are hitting the same packet-reordering issue reported in another >email thread. But as you and Bruno Antunes said before the warning message is normal and I can ignore it? I've tested with both TCP and UDP using iperf. I'm testing TCP with option -w256K and 10 stream (-P10) With Open Authentication in 802.11ac VHT80 UDP Download (1% packet lost) : 565 Mbps UDP Upload (1% packet lost): 320 Mbps TCP Download: 380 Mbps TCP Upload: 260 Mbps >At least for standard operation (ie, no software-crypt), I doubt my >changes to the firmware had any significant impact on performance >or throughput. You're right, If I do not enter promiscuous mode, I get the same rate when doing test with your firmware and the official firmware. But if I use your firmware for my STA in promiscuous mode, the rate is a little bit slower when doing test (about 20 Mbps less than non promiscuous mode) NGUYEN Vu Hai Acita-Sodielec Route de Mayres - B.P. 9 12100 St GEORGES DE LUZENCON FRANCE _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k