Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.80.65]:57347 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753536AbYIUVCc (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:02:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:57:06 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Johannes Berg , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhu@intel.com, reinette.chatre@intel.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: Mark IPW2100 as BROKEN: Fatal interrupt. Scheduling firmware restart. Message-ID: <20080921205706.GA24545@2ka.mipt.ru> (sfid-20080921_230242_249076_4036040F) References: <20080921172316.GA6306@2ka.mipt.ru> <20080921110422.1d010b96@infradead.org> <20080921182835.GA11473@2ka.mipt.ru> <20080921113513.16677c4e@infradead.org> <20080921190050.GA20484@2ka.mipt.ru> <1222024444.3023.53.camel@johannes.berg> <20080921193809.GA8735@2ka.mipt.ru> <20080921124332.67ddc13a@infradead.org> <20080921202057.GB25052@2ka.mipt.ru> <20080921132753.5689b564@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080921132753.5689b564@infradead.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 01:27:53PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven (arjan@infradead.org) wrote: > > Well, I actually wanted to have a bug there because of it, but now I > > think that annoying repeated warning is enough to bring attention to > > the problem by putting bug information into some magic special place > > called kerneloops collection. > > are you more interested in bringing attention than finding something > that makes the driver work ? I sort of am getting that impression and > I'd be disappointed if that is the case. I do think that it can not be fixed without serious intervention of the Intel (hardware) folks, since bug exists more than 4 years in two firmwares and lots of very different driver versions and was reproduced even on 2.4 kernel. I will experiment with reloading issues as Alan suggested and to add/remove more surgery into initialization process to be allowed to 'workaround' the issue, since it looks noone else will. But that's definitely not a fix and in my personal workaround's 10 degrees shit'o'meter this lies around 12. > > Consider for inclusing for the upcoming kernel to get wider > > notifications. Yes, it is not a bugfix, I know. > > still more complex than needed; a WARN_ON_ONCE() will be enough. That allows to dump whatever number of warnings you want. The more we have, the louder will be customers scream. -- Evgeniy Polyakov