Re: [ 104/173] rt2x00: Dont let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDUsubframe fails

From: Andreas Hartmann
Date: Mon Jan 07 2013 - 17:07:22 EST

Hello Stanislaw!

Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:38:35PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0100, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>>>> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 09:10 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>>>>>>>> To be clear, I have all of these in the queue:
>>>>>>>> be03d4a45c09 rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe fails
>>>>>>>> 5b632fe85ec8 mac80211: introduce IEEE80211_HW_TEARDOWN_AGGR_ON_BAR_FAIL
>>>>>>>> ab9d6e4ffe19 Revert: "rt2x00: Don't let mac80211 send a BAR when an AMPDU subframe fails"
>>>>>>>> and I'm intending to drop/defer them all.
>>>>>>> Patch 3 is a revert of patch 1 (questioned patch). Please apply all 3 patches,
>>>>>>> or only patch 2.
>>>>>> No, actually all 3 patches have to be applied. Because last one, except
>>>>>> revert, include flag IEEE80211_HW_TEARDOWN_AGGR_ON_BAR_FAIL setting in rt2x00
>>>>>> driver, which make patch 2 work.
>>>>> Andreas said that that after ab9d6e4ffe19 there was still a regression.
>>> That's not true. There will be no regression after ab9d6e4ffe20. The
>>> only thing is that solution is not perfect. But perfect solution require
>>> lot of changes i.e. is not -stable appropriate (and does not exist currently).
>>>>> But maybe he was confused. I know I'm confused.
>>>> :-))
>>>> No, the thing is:
>>>> rt2800pci misses an appropriate handling of aggregation (which meets the
>>>> requirements of mac80211).
>>>> Both workarounds, mine and the new workaround from Stanislaw (which is
>>>> nothing more than a restricted version of my initial workaround), work
>>> Your workaround broke STA mode on some environment.
>> Why are you sure, that this workaround doesn't break some other devices
>> running in AP mode? We believed at that time too, it wouldn't harm even
>> STA. But this was wrong for some (which?) devices.
> Because it make behaviour the same as it was before 3.2, which introduce
> those issues.

You're so right, Stanislaw! I should have better looked again at your
patch before writing those stupid lines about differentiation between
STA and AP.

Please apologize!

Kind regards,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at