On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 00:01 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > But you're saying it's "normal" to get this failure, >> >> No, I'm just sayings its possible, right now mac80211 assumes its not >> and if it does its because we somehow lied to mac80211 of our >> capabilities. > > Well, yes, sort of. > >> > so wouldn't it >> > always do that sooner or later and always say your hw is broken? >> >> Nope > > Why not? > >> > Also, >> > that's a bad thing to do in userspace, imho. >> >> What should we do with these rare failures then? > > print an error message? ignore them? try again? I'd prefer a simple error print than a WARN_ON(). >> > hw borked is one obvious case, but it shouldn't happen enough >> > for this to be a problem yet. >> >> This I agree with. It is rare, its just possible, right now mac80211 >> assumes it never will. > > It's _always_ assumed that by ignoring the return value, now it's just > noisy about it because clearly it doesn't like when the driver fails to > do what it wants since then the hw and sw states get out of sync. I > really don't see what to do other than retry maybe, but that might well > be done in the driver instead. As can be seen from the patch suggested what some drivers will end up doing is just ignoring failures but I guess that can be up to the drivers to deal with as you are suggesting. I'd be inclined to try to disable the device in case of a few failed resets to be specific with ath5k. Would mac80211 want to be informed of that through the return value? Is the WARN still appropriate? Luis -- 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
