On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 13:23 -0800, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Provide additional information that may help debugging why > the WARN_ON is seen. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c > index 75c5c58e14a5..ec24ece7c877 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c > @@ -2356,7 +2356,10 @@ iwl_mvm_scan_umac_fill_general_p_v12(struct iwl_mvm *mvm, > link_id = ffs(vif->active_links) - 1; > > link_info = scan_vif->link[link_id]; > - if (!WARN_ON(!link_info)) > + if (WARN_ON(!link_info)) > + IWL_ERR(mvm, "scan failure: Cannot find link info for link-id: %d active-links: 0x%x\n", > + link_id, vif->active_links); > It would make sense to put the data *into* the warning, rather than separately? Though I'm not sure I see so much value in the long string (vs. just the data). But honestly I'm not sure this really even is a problem at all? Some confusion can happen during firmware restart here, and not sure we can really fix that. Though maybe with the new locking we can. johannes
