On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 10:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> > I really think that can be done more easily though. For one, clearly we >>> > already have the warning, so we don't need more infrastructure to catch >>> > such errors?! >>> >>> This is true, I just added that to ensure I hit these when testing >>> really, I can nuke the counter, but it can help if eventually believe >>> we have a proper fix to allow these frames through somehow too. >>> >>> > Also, this may end up hiding issues that we don't yet >>> > understand, like the nullfunc one you were talking about. >>> >>> Yeah, good point, although I am under the impression this is a similar >>> situation, we probably try to send a nullfunc to notify the old AP we >>> are going to go awake if we are transmitting data while roaming. But >>> yeah, its not easily triggerable yet. >>> >>> > The delBA one >>> > we now understand fully, so it makes more sense to simply suppress >>> > sending delBA when we are going to disassociate by way of associating >>> > with a new AP, no? >>> >>> That's reasonable but we will still need the channel, otherwise how >>> would we know its this issue? >> >> Why do we care? We can just always suppress sending the delba when we >> get into _set_disassoc() from mgd_assoc(), no? > > Yeah, and I actually think I found another race with this code, I'm > going to try something a bit different now. OK yay, took a while but I think I found a better and proper fix for this. Will post next. 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
