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 _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
