Return-path: Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.187]:27377 "EHLO rn-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751995AbYKZQ3L (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:29:11 -0500 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k40so524545rnd.17 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:29:09 -0800 (PST) To: "linville@tuxdriver.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipw2200: increase scan timeout Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:28:43 +0100 Cc: reinette chatre , Helmut Schaa , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "Zhu, Yi" , "ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" References: <200811251809.55461.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> <1227637971.13619.262.camel@rc-desk> In-Reply-To: <1227637971.13619.262.camel@rc-desk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200811261728.44428.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> (sfid-20081126_172918_015990_3C3E643C) From: Helmut Schaa Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Dienstag, 25. November 2008 schrieb reinette chatre: > On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 09:09 -0800, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > The current scan timeout is set to 5 seconds. If the timeout is hit because > > the firmware did not respond yet, the adapter gets restarted, which results > > in a disassociation. > > > > However, in an environment with lots of access points the scan sometimes takes > > longer than 5 seconds. This patch simply increases the timeout to 10 seconds. > > > > Signed-off-by: helmut.schaa@googlemail.com > > --- > > > > I was able to reproduce the issue fairly reliable with a 2915 adapter by > > periodically triggering scans while associated. > > > > I have no idea in which situations the scan takes longer than 5 seconds to > > complete but maybe it might even take longer than 10 seconds. Has anybody from > > Intel insight into the firmware scan code? > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c > > index c73173a..a776da3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c > > @@ -2304,7 +2304,7 @@ static void ipw_bg_adapter_restart(struct work_struct *work) > > mutex_unlock(&priv->mutex); > > } > > > > -#define IPW_SCAN_CHECK_WATCHDOG (5 * HZ) > > +#define IPW_SCAN_CHECK_WATCHDOG (10 * HZ) > > > > static void ipw_scan_check(void *data) > > { > > I do not have insight into the scan code ... but I can try to find out > if there is something specific you need to know. > > This change seems harmless and if it helps you it may help somebody else > too. > > Acked-by: Reinette Chatre John, please do _not_ merge this patch. It only hides the real problem. I'll send another patch (including explanations) in a few minutes. Helmut