[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071125140121.GA12665@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:01:21 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: dsd@...too.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: wireless vs. alignment requirements
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 02:54:24PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> But I do have a choice where to fix it up and I'd prefer the drivers to
> do it where necessary. For that, the warning would work because it'd
> show driver authors that they need to fix something.
Fair enough.
> Hmm. I don't think so. Take an AP for example. It gets a lot of packets
> from stations. Now, if you're not QoS capable then all is well. But i
> you are and some stations are as well then all those stations send QoS
> packets (+2 bytes). Or take an AP connected via wireless (WPS), WPS has
> +6 bytes so I get all incoming upstream traffic with such unaligned
> headers.
The question is does this actually change all the time. Let's
say you took a random sample of a second worth of IP packets
over wireless, what proportion of them are going to have the
same hardware header length modulo 4?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists