On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 06:04:49 PseudoCylon wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> > > To: PseudoCylon <moonlightak...@yahoo.ca> > > Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 7:04:37 AM > > Subject: Re: RFT: if_ath HAL refactoring > > > > On 21 September 2010 11:58, PseudoCylon <moonlightak...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > > > Just in case anyone wonders, I've added 11n support to run(4) (USB > > > NIC). http://gitorious.org/run/run/trees/11n_beta2 > > > > > > It still has some issues, > > > > > > * doesn't work well with atheros chips > > > > > > * HT + AP + bridge = Tx may stall (seems OK with nat) > > > > > > So, use it at your own discretion. > > > > Want to put together a patch? > > sure! > > > Does it introduce issues in the non-11n case? > > No, only in 11n mode. > > What I have found so far is that Ralink's driver checks MAC address of > other end and identify atheros chip by oui. Then, sets special prot mode > for it. Does this ring a bell?
Are your sure that this is based on the actual MAC addresses? Atheros drivers tend to announce additional capabilities in beacons and probe responses. > Has node lock in ieee80211_node_timeout() cased dead lock in HT + AP + > bridge? I'm not aware of any issues there, though, I'm not very familiar with HT use cases. -- Bernhard _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
