[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD2nsn2MH7yXWZML5byD1_RW1d0E2Q2rhmnOBHei5iUVPU_ukA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:27:07 +0530
From: Mohammed Shafi <shafi.wireless@...il.com>
To: MR <g7af0ec1e3ea1e7b1@...tmail.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: ath9k crash 3.2-rc7
2012/1/9 MR <g7af0ec1e3ea1e7b1@...tmail.ru>:
> >> So, I am building 3.2 with two patches: over/under-flow catcher (pity
> >that
> >> it seems to be on a multiple-times-per-second codepath and just leaving
> >the
> > > checks there for everyone is suboptimal) and allegedely proper fix. Both
> > > applied OK with a small offset.
> >
> > as per our assumption, we should not see those over/underflow errors,
> > with the patch
> > above mentioned. please let us know if you hit upon this warnings,
> > even after the proper fix.
>
> In my experience (and as I understand the situation) if garbage is writen to
> the "chan", it is caught by the check and device is dead-until-reboot anyway.
> On 3.0, even without checks device was dead-until-reboot, but no crash
> happened. All these checks do is converting "panic" to "WiFi broken" for 3.2.
>
true those checks are to confirm that 'chan' is corrupted and the
patch is to fix it.
--
shafi
--
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