Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Make-wifi-fast Digest, Vol 29, Issue 9

[Adrian Popescu <adriannnpopescu@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1658 bytes --]

I'll compile again from the latest sources to test again.

Please don't revert the patch because of my report.

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
wrote:

> Jon Pike <jonpike54@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hey Toke...
> >
> > Did you notice a guy responded to your commit on LEDE-DEV?  He's
> reporting
> > no speed problems on his C2600...   This is turning into a head
> > scratcher.
>
> Yeah, that is odd. Not really sure what to do about it at this point;
> maybe just leave it in and see if more people complain?
>
> > I was going to finally get back to this thread and suggest that at
> > least the C5/7 special build that rOOt manages on the LEDE forum could
> > benefit from this, (uh, except for that pesky lack of latency
> > reduction?) after it gets reverted from the nightly.
> >
> > Now, I'm just wondering what benifits there would be with this. I
> > realize I've pretty much forgotten now what kinds of bufferbloat
> > reduction and or airtime fairness bits ath10k had before, or would
> > have with this. So if you wouldn't mind going over that again, at
> > least I'd have the right info to pass along on what the benifits would
> > be... assuming it's reccomendable at this point.
>
> I don't have any ath10k cards in my own testbed, so I don't have a good
> dataset for the potential gains. Not sure if someone else on the list
> has done comparisons and can share results?
>
> -Toke
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2420 bytes --]