On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Luis R. > Rodriguez<lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Johannes Berg<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 14:04 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM, reinette >>>> chatre<reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> > This touches code targeted for removal in recent "mac80211: disconnect >>>> >> > when user changes channel" patch. >>>> >> >>>> >> Heh I don't see that patch yet but if it exists that should fix this >>>> >> too unless that patch didn't deauth/disassoc. Did you try with it >>>> >> applied by any chance? I can't seem to find that patch on the list. >>>> > >>>> > That patch does seem to have same intention as yours. It is still RFC so >>>> > I am not sure about its status. I did not test with it, but will do so. >>>> > The patch can be found at >>>> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=124458448631186&w=2 >>>> >>>> Thanks yes, I see, yup I think that should fix it, we need a fix for >>>> stable though. Not sure how John or Johannes want to handle this. >>> >>> *scratches head* >>> are you advocating those rate cleanups for stable? >> >> No, a few fixes are needed for stable (now 2.6.30) though. For example >> the assert downgrade patch can be used but most likely that'll just be >> doing something completely wrong, so we do need to ensure the dynamic >> ps stuff does not trigger when scanning and I do consider that a >> proper fix for stable. I forget when ps stuff when in. >> >> The issue here is this *is* a bug not only for iwlwifi. iwlwifi >> currently gets no warning because of a work around in the driver's >> rate control algorithm as it is in stable. I haven't tried running >> this band change with ath9k > > Just to clarify -- I did run this with the patches I posted and I did > hit the warning, but I did not try this without the patches I posted. > Chances that will cause the kernel to commit suicide and oops. As expected I was able to reproduce the warning with atht5k and ath9k on 2.6.30. I did not get a crash with ath9k though, which is good. But the warning is still present. Do we want to fix this for stable? If so is the patch I posted reasonable? 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
