[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1367934810.8328.30.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:53:30 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Cc: Jake Edge <jake@....net>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to
1672c0e3
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:42 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> Can you explain why it is named passive_no_rx instead passive_no_tx ?
Emmanuel already commented on this, basically the error codes are all
for "I couldn't transmit this frame", so here we have "I couldn't
transmit this frame because it was on a _passive_ channel and there was
_no rx_ yet."
> > I think the best way to solve this would be to do such a thing in
> > iwlegacy as well, but until then and for stable maybe we should
> > introduce another HW flag to restore the previous mac80211 behaviour?
>
> I'm not sure if I like to add passive_no_rx to iwlegacy. Stopping queues
> and waiting for beacon looks sticky, what happen if beacon will not be
> received?
Good question, do we get stuck? I was assuming we'd time out, but maybe
that's not the case?
> Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965,
> it's simpler workaround ?
Sure, but maybe that loses other semantics that you want?
And anyway it's not complete. If you have a very long beacon interval
(say 1 second) then this could still lead to all probe/auth retries
going out inbetween two beacons since the timeout is just 3*100ms.
johannes
--
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