Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757576Ab3EGPeA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 11:34:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20124 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753756Ab3EGPd6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 11:33:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 17:35:25 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Johannes Berg Cc: Jake Edge , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, lkml Subject: Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to 1672c0e3 Message-ID: <20130507153525.GB1576@redhat.com> References: <20130505143803.7e46e4c6@chukar.edge2.net> <20130506123805.GA1602@redhat.com> <20130506083759.556dac76@chukar.edge2.net> <20130506153044.GB1602@redhat.com> <1367854279.8434.13.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1367855046.8434.16.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130507084241.GA1581@redhat.com> <1367934810.8328.30.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1367934810.8328.30.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1475 Lines: 34 On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:53:30PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > I think the best way to solve this would be to do such a thing in > > > iwlegacy as well, but until then and for stable maybe we should > > > introduce another HW flag to restore the previous mac80211 behaviour? > > > > I'm not sure if I like to add passive_no_rx to iwlegacy. Stopping queues > > and waiting for beacon looks sticky, what happen if beacon will not be > > received? > > Good question, do we get stuck? I was assuming we'd time out, but maybe > that's not the case? AFICT, we wake queues only if beacon arrives or mac80211 call drv_config with BSS_CHANGED_IDLE. I'm not sure if the latter prevent stuck. > > Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965, > > it's simpler workaround ? > > Sure, but maybe that loses other semantics that you want? > > And anyway it's not complete. If you have a very long beacon interval > (say 1 second) then this could still lead to all probe/auth retries > going out inbetween two beacons since the timeout is just 3*100ms. Let's make that change as temporary regression workaround, I'll add passive_no_rx workaround latter. I'll also think if it can stuck or not. Stanislaw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/