On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Tomas Winkler <tomasw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Richard Scherping wrote: >>>> >>>> Tomas Winkler schrieb: >> >>> >>> Amen. >> Stable doesn't mean all components are stable, citation from Linus blog: >> "It doesn't have to be perfect (and obviously no release ever is), but >> it needs to be in reasonable shape" >> >> The fact is that some critical patches were rejected as not >> regressions in rc cycle and probably need to be pushed to the stable >> version now or distribution will merge them. >> We gave more priority for testing 32 bit version so it is more stable >> then 64 bit which got much less in house testing and we've missed many >> issues there. The driver doesn't get full exposure till it's get to >> the public in stable version therefore no bugs are opened in the rc >> cycle so also are not fixed in the stable version. and unfortunately >> there is no much system testing at all for what get's into merging >> window. >> Second the whole mac80211 stack didn't address fully MQ rewrite so >> it's a bit shaky as well and this will be fact also in 2.6.28. > > OK. > >> >> This driver has been available and more-or-less working for ages. >>> What kernel am I supposed to run if I just want a stable system? Haven't >>> found one yet, other than distro kernels... >>> >>> In any case, I've seen these complete system hiccups with iwl4965 and iwlagn >>> since at least 2.6.25 and through quite a few wireless-testing versions. I >>> bet that this, along with things like it, is the culprit: >> >> Haven't seen you've filled bug for it. > > Fair enough. #1790. > Appreciated. >> >> Locking need to be really revised but till now I didn't see show >> stoppers issues so it didn't get priority >> >>> Would I be out of line for wishing the iwlwifi developers >> Patches are always welcome > > I can write a patch to add a mutex and change it to: > > take mutex > grab_nic > spinlock > > but I bet that would break all kinds of things. :) > I'm far from being lock master but I think mutex just won't work here it can be used only in sleep-able context Also if I'm not mistake if you using the lock in irq context we must use irqsafe version of the spin lock, Thanks Tomas -- 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
