From aec6795210db6ba3f4592056d41ac5b1ab41e980 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jouni Malinen Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 20:35:15 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] mac80211: Comment the order of HT RX reorder handler vs. RX handlers We are currently processing block ack reordering as a separate task before all other RX handlers. In theory, this is wrong since this step should be done only after duplicate removal (see Figure 6-1 in IEEE 802.11n). However, moving this needs some work and the current situation is not too bad. Add a comment here so that this small detail does not get forgotten and who knows, maybe someone has some extra time to take a look at cleaning this up. Signed-off-by: Jouni Malinen Signed-off-by: John W. Linville --- net/mac80211/rx.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/net/mac80211/rx.c b/net/mac80211/rx.c index 24d41705ac0..d052f400482 100644 --- a/net/mac80211/rx.c +++ b/net/mac80211/rx.c @@ -2551,6 +2551,18 @@ void __ieee80211_rx(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb, return; } + /* + * In theory, the block ack reordering should happen after duplicate + * removal (ieee80211_rx_h_check(), which is an RX handler). As such, + * the call to ieee80211_rx_reorder_ampdu() should really be moved to + * happen as a new RX handler between ieee80211_rx_h_check and + * ieee80211_rx_h_decrypt. This cleanup may eventually happen, but for + * the time being, the call can be here since RX reorder buf processing + * will implicitly skip duplicates. We could, in theory at least, + * process frames that ieee80211_rx_h_passive_scan would drop (e.g., + * frames from other than operational channel), but that should not + * happen in normal networks. + */ if (!ieee80211_rx_reorder_ampdu(local, skb, status)) __ieee80211_rx_handle_packet(hw, skb, status, rate); -- 2.41.0