lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 31-rc3-mmotm0716 - wonky wireless statistics..
From
Date
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 09:31 +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:

> > # cat /proc/net/wireless
> > Inter-| sta-| Quality | Discarded packets | Missed | WE
> > face | tus | link level noise | nwid crypt frag retry misc | beacon | 22
> > wlan0: 0000 63. -47. -256 0 0 0 0 0 0
> > wlan1: 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> > wlan2: 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> >
> > Where did that -256 for "noise" come from? It ends up confusing the
> > gkrellm-wifi plugin, it reports a S/N of 219dB ;)
>
> This should be related to http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-testing.git;a=commit;h=fdb897ea5c77836f890033d563336ab0c94c9222
>
> But I don't think this is an ABI broken. User space should parse the
> trailing '.' to see if a field is updated or not because there are cards
> not capable to report hardware noise level anyway. Johannes?

So I had to look at the code to figure out wtf is going on.

Then the value shown is calculated as:
((__s32) stats->qual.noise) - ((stats->qual.updated & IW_QUAL_DBM) ? 0x100 : 0)

and since we have dBm for the signal strength (and dBm is "all or
nothing") you get -256 since we don't fill noise right now.

However, it goes on like this:
stats->qual.updated & IW_QUAL_NOISE_UPDATED ? '.' : ' '

so you're right -- the tool shouldn't be using the value unless followed
by a dot (".").

Thus, your analysis is correct as far as I can tell -- it's a userspace
bug and your userspace just happened to work correctly with this card,
but would have been broken with almost all other wireless cards.

johannes
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-29 09:23    [W:0.058 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site