3 ms·

Only 8, and not 1? Because, at least on my system, looking at iwlwifi... parm: 11n_disable:disable 11n functionality, bitmap: 1: full, 2: disable ag

Only 8, and not 1? Because, at least on my system, looking at iwlwifi... parm: 11n_disable:disable 11n functionality, bitmap: 1: full, 2: disable agg TX, 4: disable agg RX, 8 enable agg TX (uint) So 8 is only aggregated TX, while 1 would be aggregated TX and RX. (It does, however, also inexplicably default to 0 on my system.)

komali2 9y ago
Oh neat, lemme try that out then.
- rincebrain 9y ago
  I'd be curious to learn what it does for you, because my intuitive interpretation would say that 1 would be "disable all", but that doesn't explain why "enable agg TX" would be an improvement unless agg RX is worse than the baseline...which is probably a bug. e: Oh, apparently this is a pathological re-use of an existing module flag to force something on that they disabled due to instability in some cases, see also: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=205e2210daa975d92ace485a65a31ccc4077fe1a https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... So I'm sorry, but my assumption about =1 is not valid, as I assumed that all of the bits (1,2,4,8) were mutating the same thing, not "one bit does something VERY DIFFERENT".