On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<lrodrig...@atheros.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<lrodrig...@atheros.com> > wrote: >> Cc'ing Matt just for his information. >> >> I'd really rather we try to keep the frames instead of dropping them >> and since the number of frames on the wrong channel are scarce it >> seems better to drop just those frames instead of all pending frames >> for now.
Ok, sounds like a better plan. In fact we could keep and report those frames with a base rate (we do that now) but one problem with that is we might think we got a beacon on a channel that we really didn't, and that could confuse the regulatory system. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
