On Tue October 5 2010 12:45:36 Ben Greear wrote:
> 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).
i think this has nothing to do with bridges. i can get the same problem with a
single AP interface. i can reproduce it by connecting 2 STA, one of which has
to use power-save. i'll come up with a simple patch soon.
bruno
--
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
