Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

net80211: refactor amrr_update() into HT and legacy paths
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by adrian on Sun, Dec 29, 7:41 PM.
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jan 23, 4:57 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Jan 22, 11:26 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Jan 15, 8:44 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Jan 6, 10:56 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Jan 6, 1:21 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Jan 6, 9:37 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 4, 10:12 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 4, 4:16 AM

Details

Reviewers
bz
Group Reviewers
wireless
Summary

Split the amrr_update() routine into HT and legacy paths.
Currently they're the same, minus HT / non-HT specific comments
and some logging changes.

HT rates don't monotonically go up (ie, going MCS 7 -> MCS 8 is wrong,
as MCS8 is "just" two stream MCS0) and failing a rate by a little
shouldn't necessarily preclude testing the next rate up.

This should be a no-op, besides the logging changes.

Locally tested:

  • RTL8192CU, STA mode

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 61989
Build 58873: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

Note: the goal here is to create a third path for VHT rates, even if it's making inefficient choices.

I have a local diff here that I'm not putting up for review (yet!) that turns it from an rix +/- change into a table based change, so we can configure which MCS rates it steps up / down through. It's a lot easier to do that with amrr refactored and cleaned up.

bz requested changes to this revision.Tue, Jan 7, 6:45 PM
bz added a subscriber: bz.

Assuming you did the c&p replication in full this seems fine as a start modulo style.

sys/net80211/ieee80211_amrr.c
235

No blank after the cast.

300

No need to initialize here.

356

What's this initialization still good for? The if/else below will do the job.

361

No need for {} {} here.

370

Should we apply return () the new code?

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Tue, Jan 7, 6:45 PM

updated, please re-review!

I just looked through the delta changes, so the original comment about the duplication assumption stays. The changes seem fine. Thank you for doing them!

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Thu, Jan 16, 11:36 AM
This revision now requires review to proceed.Thu, Jan 23, 2:41 AM