On 10/04/2010 08:43 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote:
On Tue October 5 2010 03:29:29 Johannes Berg wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 10:22 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
It seems he put two VAPs into a bridge device, and got an
assert here (nevermind the printk, I just added that to
help debug the issue).
static void __ieee80211_wake_queue(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, int queue,
enum queue_stop_reason reason)
{
struct ieee80211_local *local = hw_to_local(hw);
struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata;
trace_wake_queue(local, queue, reason);
if (WARN_ON(queue>= hw->queues)) {
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: queue: %i hw->queues: %i\n",
sdata->name, queue, hw->queues);
return;
}
Before I try to reproduce this, it is valid to add APs to bridge
devices in the first place?
Yes, it's valid, we catch the invalid cases in cfg80211.
Hitting the assert there is rather strange though.
hey!
i'm seeing the same. i think it's due to a bug in ath5k concerning power save.
we put frames in the CAB queue, but obviously we shouldn't tell mac80211 to
wake this queue (number 6) since mac80211 knows nothing about it.
Interesting...we couldn't reproduce it at all (two APs in a bridge worked as
expected, as far as we could tell).
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.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
