On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 03:52:29AM +0530, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > (gdb) l *(ath_get_rate+0x468) > 0x202f8 is in ath_get_rate (drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/rc.c:744). > 739 } > 740 > 741 if (rate > (ath_rc_priv->rate_table_size - 1)) > 742 rate = ath_rc_priv->rate_table_size - 1; > 743 > 744 ASSERT((rate_table->info[rate].valid && > 745 (ath_rc_priv->ht_cap & WLAN_RC_DS_FLAG)) || > 746 (rate_table->info[rate].valid_single_stream && > 747 !(ath_rc_priv->ht_cap & WLAN_RC_DS_FLAG))); > Most probably we are using wrong rate table at this moment. This is possible only when we failt during channel set after completing the scan. Can you please confirm if you are seeing failures during channel set after changing this assert into warning?. Vasanth -- 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
