On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 00:26 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> 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(). Just so you don't get blamed on kerneloops.org? :) > >> > 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? I think the warning is appropriate, yes, since mac80211 has no concept of failing hardware configuration. You're free to add such a concept, but I really don't know what mac80211 would be supposed to do when things fail, just try to stop/start? panic()? Instruct the user to reboot? to swap hardware? See? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
