W dniu 23 czerwca 2011 22:30 użytkownik Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał: > Rafał and John, > > I was doing routine testing today on 3.0-rc4 kernels built from > wireless-testing and Linus's mainline git tree. To my surprise, I noticed an > important difference on the netbook with a 14e4:4315 BCM4312 802.11b/g LP > PHY device. Although b43 would work OK with light loads, it would always > fail at heavy loads. Sometimes, it would get the "Out of order TX status" > failure, and sometimes it would just lose the connection. As that machine is > quite slow, I maintain its kernel source on an NFS volume exported by an > x86_64 machine with fast CPUs and relatively fast disks. > > Until today, the BCM4312 had never been able to complete the "make > modules_install" step needed to get a new kernel on the netbook, and would > fail in the middle of copying the modules from the NFS volume to the local > /lib/modules tree. After installing the wireless-testing 3.0-rc4 kernel > using rtl8187 as the network driver, I was quite surprised to find that the > new kernel could use b43 to install the new kernel from Linus's tree. After > booting that kernel, the failure returned. > > I then made other load tests on the w-t kernel without failures. > > There are no real differences between the b43 sources in the two kernels. > There are lots of changes associated with the bus reorganization; however > these do not seem to cause the problem. > > Only one of the patches to ssb seems to be the "fix", namely commit eb40e3e8 > entitled "drivers/ssb/driver_chipcommon_pmu.c: uninitilized warning" by > Connor Hansen. I need to do more tests on this patch, but the kernel from > Linus's tree could reinstall itself when I added this patch. I see no > indication in the commit message regarding pushing this one to stable, but I > think it should go upstream to mainline and the stable trees. It does not look like possible fix to me. Plus it sounds like false warning from compiler. Take a look at relation between: 1) updown_tab and updown_tab_size 2) depend_tab and depend_tab_size Second value (*_size) is never used when first one is NULL. In switch we don't change updown_tab or depend_tab. They are both NULL, so updown_tab_size and depend_tab_size should never be checked at all. Could you do more tests about this, please? -- Rafał -- 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
