<p dir="ltr">Quick question: does this weighted logic need to be applied to 5GHz ACS as well, or is there a different methodology at play here due to DFS requirements in certain portions of the band, regulatory domain dependent?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for your time, as always.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">Jeremy D. Ward, CWNE<br>
(954) 661-4965</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 6, 2015 2:26 PM, "Jouni Malinen" <<a href="mailto:j@w1.fi">j@w1.fi</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:45:10PM -0800, Fumikazu Yobimoto wrote:<br>
> I understood that's reasonable, agreed your idea.<br>
> I tried to test ACS using your latest patch, and I was able to see a good<br>
> result<br>
> as I hoped. In addition, I tested other value witch Eduard mentioned.<br>
><br>
> #define ACS_ADJ_WEIGHT 0.85<br>
> #define ACS_NEXT_ADJ_WEIGHT 0.55<br>
><br>
> The experiment result shows it works fine. I attach on the bottom.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
> -An error about patch-<br>
> adj_chan->interference_factor;<br>
> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if (adj_chan && acs_usable_chan(adj_chan)) {<br>
> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â factor += ACS_NEXT_ADJ_WEIGHT +<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <= This line.<br>
<br>
> it should be<br>
><br>
> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â factor += ACS_NEXT_ADJ_WEIGHT *<br>
> +<br>
>Â adj_chan->interference_factor;<br>
<br>
Indeed. Fixed in the current version in the pending branch.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jouni Malinen                      PGP id EFC895FA<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
HostAP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HostAP@lists.shmoo.com">HostAP@lists.shmoo.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/hostap" target="_blank">http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/hostap</a><br>
</blockquote></div>