[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090227031525.GG13456@tesla>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:15:25 -0800
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@...eros.com>
To: Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>
CC: Luis Rodriguez <Luis.Rodriguez@...eros.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
"proski@....org" <proski@....org>,
"ath5k-devel@...ema.h4ckr.net" <ath5k-devel@...ema.h4ckr.net>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH 1/1] ath5k: fix hw rate index condition
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 07:06:08PM -0800, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 06:39:12PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Might be worth adding a note why this is the case. Can't we simply avoid
> > this by checking earlier for the error or simply assigning it an actual
> > default _good_ hw rate value?
>
> I guess an alternative is to initialize to 0, that would count any rx
> packets whose hw rate we don't know about as the base rate, so it would
> probably bias the RC to 1mb, but this is already one of those 'should
> never happen' cases.
Understood.
> Also I can't forsee having a rate index > 127 so
> changing the sign is pretty low risk.
Sure, it just seems a bit strange to see a signed rate index,
that's all. And if its to deal with an error I think it may
be nicer to actually use a rate that works and then warn
rather than warn and not use a valid rate at all.
Mind you I haven't checked this code in while.
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists