Hi Reinette,
> In 2.6.30 we are starting to see people encountering a WARN when
> resuming with HW rfkill enabled. The WARN is printed from
> net/mac80211/pm.c:159 in 2.6.30, for current wireless-testing it is
> net/mac80211/util.c:1050.
Hmm, ok, that makes sense.
> With that function resuming multiple interfaces I do not know if it will
> make sense to return an error code if one fails. So, it seems that
> __ieee80211_resume()/ieee80211_reconfig() will always return zero. Even
> so, the case where ieee80211_if_config() fails needs to be
> accommodated.
>
> Would something like this make sense?
>
> diff --git a/net/mac80211/pm.c b/net/mac80211/pm.c
> index 0273023..46f2961 100644
> --- a/net/mac80211/pm.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/pm.c
> @@ -156,8 +156,11 @@ int __ieee80211_resume(struct ieee80211_hw *hw)
> case NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC:
> case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
> case NL80211_IFTYPE_MESH_POINT:
> - WARN_ON(ieee80211_if_config(sdata, changed));
> - ieee80211_bss_info_change_notify(sdata, ~0);
> + if (ieee80211_if_config(sdata, changed))
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: failed to configure interface\n",
> + sdata->dev->name);
> + else
> + ieee80211_bss_info_change_notify(sdata, ~0);
Not sure. That doesn't seem to make sense anyway, since iwlwifi does
this:
if (iwl_is_rfkill(priv))
goto done;
...
done:
...
return 0;
Or will this test:
if (!iwl_is_alive(priv))
return -EAGAIN;
kick us out before even getting to the rfkill test?
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
