iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was
allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive
that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes
with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user
intervention, so warn about that.
Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
@@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) {
il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS);
+ WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled,
+ "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n");
ret = il_power_update_mode(il, false);
if (ret)
D_MAC80211("Error setting sleep level\n");
--
1.7.1
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:05AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was
> > allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive
> > that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes
> > with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user
> > intervention, so warn about that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> > index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> > @@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
> >
> > if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) {
> > il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS);
> > + WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled,
> > + "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n");
>
> This prints the whole stack trace, right? Isn't that excessive and
> fooling the users to think that they found a bug, which would mean more
> bug reports sent to us? So maybe a simple printk is better here?
I wanted to have back trace to assure problem will not be missed, but
I think you have right, I'll post v2.
Thanks
Stanislaw
Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> writes:
> iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was
> allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive
> that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes
> with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user
> intervention, so warn about that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> @@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>
> if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) {
> il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS);
> + WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled,
> + "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n");
This prints the whole stack trace, right? Isn't that excessive and
fooling the users to think that they found a bug, which would mean more
bug reports sent to us? So maybe a simple printk is better here?
--
Kalle Valo
On 5/15/2017 11:20 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:05AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was
>>> allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive
>>> that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes
>>> with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user
>>> intervention, so warn about that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
>>> index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
>>> @@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>>>
>>> if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) {
>>> il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS);
>>> + WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled,
>>> + "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n");
>>
>> This prints the whole stack trace, right? Isn't that excessive and
>> fooling the users to think that they found a bug, which would mean more
>> bug reports sent to us? So maybe a simple printk is better here?
>
> I wanted to have back trace to assure problem will not be missed, but
> I think you have right, I'll post v2.
I think instead of printk, a wiphy_warn() would be better here using
hw->wiphy.
Regards,
Arend
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:25:51AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 5/15/2017 11:20 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> >On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:05AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >>Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>>iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was
> >>>allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive
> >>>that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes
> >>>with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user
> >>>intervention, so warn about that.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
> >>>---
> >>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++
> >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> >>>index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644
> >>>--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
> >>>@@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
> >>> if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) {
> >>> il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS);
> >>>+ WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled,
> >>>+ "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n");
> >>
> >>This prints the whole stack trace, right? Isn't that excessive and
> >>fooling the users to think that they found a bug, which would mean more
> >>bug reports sent to us? So maybe a simple printk is better here?
> >
> >I wanted to have back trace to assure problem will not be missed, but
> >I think you have right, I'll post v2.
>
> I think instead of printk, a wiphy_warn() would be better here using
> hw->wiphy.
I used dev_warn variant, what is consistent with the driver code.
Stanislaw
On 5/15/2017 11:33 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:25:51AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 5/15/2017 11:20 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:05AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was
>>>>> allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive
>>>>> that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes
>>>>> with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user
>>>>> intervention, so warn about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++
>>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
>>>>> index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c
>>>>> @@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>>>>> if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) {
>>>>> il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS);
>>>>> + WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled,
>>>>> + "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n");
>>>>
>>>> This prints the whole stack trace, right? Isn't that excessive and
>>>> fooling the users to think that they found a bug, which would mean more
>>>> bug reports sent to us? So maybe a simple printk is better here?
>>>
>>> I wanted to have back trace to assure problem will not be missed, but
>>> I think you have right, I'll post v2.
>>
>> I think instead of printk, a wiphy_warn() would be better here using
>> hw->wiphy.
>
> I used dev_warn variant, what is consistent with the driver code.
I noticed. Works for me ;-)
Regards,
Arend