On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? :) No because like I said a hw reset can fail and don't think software should be blamed. Right now we do that. >> >> > 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? Sure, OK then the error will be "deal with". 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
