2010/5/25 Gábor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2010/5/25 Weedy <weedy2887@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> 2010/5/24 Gábor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@xxxxxxxxx>: >>>> 2010/5/25 Weedy <weedy2887@xxxxxxxxx>: >>>>> 2010/5/23 Gábor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@xxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>> In the meantime, one thing to test: Add a printk of sc->opmode. >>>>> >>>>> May 24 22:04:20 tiny-h4x kernel: [41147.243149] sc->opmode: 02 (over9000 times) >>>>> >>>>> So i'm guessing I did it wrong (I don't know C). >>>>> printk(KERN_NOTICE "sc->opmode: %02x\n", sc->opmode); >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, that is correct, and proves my theory (2 is NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION >>>> - it should be 6 for monitor mode). >>>> >>>> BTW, please use "Reply to all". >>>> >>> gmail got rid of the "Reply to all by default" option :< >>> >>> When you have a patch I will be waiting. >> >> Sorry, I missed this thread somehow. Thanks for the detective >> work and apologies for my stupid goof. Gábor, are you prepping >> a patch? I can fix it if you like. >> > > If you can, please fix it - I know what the bug is, but have no solid > idea about a fix. Ok, it should be enough to look at the filter flags instead of the opmode -- I knew in the back of my mind that the monitor stuff was bogus (part of the reason I did the patch in the first place) but just got confused by what was already there I guess. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com -- 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
