>> > > 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 ? Well, it is basically - passive channel with no rx :-) This means we can't 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 ? -- 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
