>> So, I am building 3.2 with two patches: over/under-flow catcher (pity
>that
>> it seems to be on a multiple-times-per-second codepath and just leaving
>the
> > checks there for everyone is suboptimal) and allegedely proper fix. Both
> > applied OK with a small offset.
>
> as per our assumption, we should not see those over/underflow errors,
> with the patch
> above mentioned. please let us know if you hit upon this warnings,
> even after the proper fix.
In my experience (and as I understand the situation) if garbage is writen to
the "chan", it is caught by the check and device is dead-until-reboot anyway.
On 3.0, even without checks device was dead-until-reboot, but no crash
happened. All these checks do is converting "panic" to "WiFi broken" for 3.2.
2012/1/9 MR <[email protected]>:
> ?>> So, I am building 3.2 with two patches: over/under-flow catcher (pity
> ?>that
> ?>> it seems to be on a multiple-times-per-second codepath and just leaving
> ?>the
> ?> > checks there for everyone is suboptimal) and allegedely proper fix. Both
> ?> > applied OK with a small offset.
> ?>
> ?> as per our assumption, we should not see those over/underflow errors,
> ?> with the patch
> ?> above mentioned. please let us know if you hit upon this warnings,
> ?> even after the proper fix.
>
> In my experience (and as I understand the situation) if garbage is writen to
> the "chan", it is caught by the check and device is dead-until-reboot anyway.
> On 3.0, even without checks device was dead-until-reboot, but no crash
> happened. All these checks do is converting "panic" to "WiFi broken" for 3.2.
>
true those checks are to confirm that 'chan' is corrupted and the
patch is to fix it.
--
shafi