On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:44:06PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 17:31 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > But if so, I would also see > > > the breakage on my setup, but I don't - it works quite well here. > > > > Are you testing on a passive channel? Try with a large beacon interval. > > I think most likely what happens is that it's on a passive channel, and > the firmware drops the TX packet with a bad status. Before the patch, > we'd just wait sitting on the channel for HZ/5 (200ms) before trying > again, with the patch we immediately retransmit the packet, which will > fail again and again until the firmware received a beacon. > > If you look at iwlwifi/dvm/, it has some passive_no_rx workaround for > this, which I don't see in iwlegacy. Can you explain why it is named passive_no_rx instead passive_no_tx ? > 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? Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965, it's simpler workaround ? Stanislaw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
