Re: [ath5k-devel] ath5k development status

2010-03-03 Thread Benoit PAPILLAULT
Derek Smithies a écrit : > [cut] > TSF jumps - yeah I looked into that on madwifi. For no apparent reason, > the TSF would jump to stupidly high values (hundred thousand years). After > chasing all the possible reasons on madwifi, I found that if you do the > script > while true; do iwpriv ath0

Re: [ath5k-devel] ath5k development status

2010-03-03 Thread Derek Smithies
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Wednesday 03 March 2010 11:46:59 Derek Smithies wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Bruno Randolf wrote: >>> (can we say that ath5k hardware is crap for IBSS?). >> >> No - one cannot prove that ath5k hardware is crap in IBSS until you can >> demonstrably sho

Re: [ath5k-devel] ath5k IBSS mode high latency

2010-03-03 Thread Bob Copeland
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Arnd Hannemann wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently experimenting with ath5k of kernel 2.6.33 in our > mesh network. We, were previously using madwifi in "ahdemo" mode, > which worked reasonably well. > > At the same time there is no reasonable traffic that justifies thi

Re: [ath5k-devel] ath5k IBSS mode high latency

2010-03-03 Thread Arnd Hannemann
Hi, Am 03.03.2010 08:16, schrieb Xingang Zhang: > Hello, > > May I ask how you configure "ibss" mode for your mesh? I am working on > a project for mesh with ath5k driver as well. Our testbed used to use > madwifi driver with ad-hoc mode. I tried to use ath5k in "Ad-Hoc" mode > as well for a few

Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v2] ath5k: fix injection in monitor mode

2010-03-03 Thread Gábor Stefanik
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:10:49AM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote: >> On Tuesday 02 March 2010 18:42:38 Jouni Malinen wrote: >> > If we want to have an option to prevent hardware from touching the frame >> > payload, that really should be an optio

Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v2] ath5k: fix injection in monitor mode

2010-03-03 Thread Jouni Malinen
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:10:49AM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Tuesday 02 March 2010 18:42:38 Jouni Malinen wrote: > > If we want to have an option to prevent hardware from touching the frame > > payload, that really should be an option (a radiotap and TX control > > flags, etc.), not default