On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Johannes Berg wrote:

> On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 13:22 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
>> Guess you are right that it will be difficult to get a completely
>> accurate number. But as David Lang notes, as long as we are off by
>> the same amount for all stations, that is fine - we're just
>> interested in relative numbers.
>
> That's not quite true though, you'd overestimate most on stations that
> are using aggregation, assuming you take into account the whole frame
> exchange sequence time. But maybe giving less than their fair share to
> fast stations isn't really that much of a problem.

how much error does this introduce?
Compared to the stations using 802.11b, this is a trivial difference.

That's why I said perfect is the enemy of good enough. Yes, it would be ideal to 
get the airtime from the driver, but if the driver doesn't provide it, I think 
ignoring aggregation in the name of simplicity is 'good enough'

David Lang