[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080921203503.GL7736@localhost>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:35:03 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ipw2100-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhu@...el.com,
reinette.chatre@...el.com, jgarzik@...ox.com,
linville@...driver.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: Mark IPW2100 as BROKEN: Fatal interrupt. Scheduling firmware
restart.
[Evgeniy Polyakov - Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:26:56AM +0400]
| On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:05:18AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov (gorcunov@...il.com) wrote:
| > Since it's that serious maybe we should change
| >
| > IPW_DEBUG_INFO("%s: Fatal error value: 0x%08X\n",
| > priv->net_dev->name, priv->fatal_error);
| >
| > to printk(KERN_WARN)? And here is why - as I see now we can't say what
| > exactly is wrong - Evgeniy said he has a suspicious about firmware so
| > this WARNS will be collected by Arjan thru kerneloops and we could not
| > ask users to change debug level and repost problem - oops will have it
| > by default - and if it really firmware problem - firmware engineers could
| > find this _additional_ info usefull and resolve it (probably).
|
| The only reason for this change is to make a mark at the kerneloops.
| I.e. users know, there is a bug. Developers know, there is a bug.
| Everyone knows that there is a bug, but until it is at the special place
| we look to each other just like there is no bug.
|
| Here are dumps for example:
| http://www.intellinuxwireless.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245
|
| Bug existed even with 1.2 firmware and .11 kernel.
| Intel, that's a great marketing slogan: stability everywhere!
|
| --
| Evgeniy Polyakov
|
>From dump:
> Sep 25 11:31:39 suino wlan0: TX timed out. Scheduling firmware restart.
yes Evgeniy - all could know that but this register info could help
firmware engineers to distinguish problems (without additional efforts
like ask users to pass debug argument - kerneloops will have it
by default) if there not only one exist. I mean I don't think anyone
would reject additional info about problem ever :)
- Cyrill -
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists