Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:34850 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750793AbYKYWLU convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:11:20 -0500 From: "Cahill, Ben M" To: "Chatre, Reinette" , Helmut Schaa CC: "ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "Zhu, Yi" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linville@tuxdriver.com" Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:06:31 -0800 Subject: RE: [Ipw2100-devel] [PATCH] ipw2200: increase scan timeout Message-ID: <02B3067C068D0549A8CCFCB17D4D318B1CAAB2EF@orsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> (sfid-20081125_231125_262971_9D84C2D7) References: <200811251809.55461.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> <1227637971.13619.262.camel@rc-desk> In-Reply-To: <1227637971.13619.262.camel@rc-desk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: reinette chatre [mailto:reinette.chatre@intel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:33 PM > To: Helmut Schaa > Cc: ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Zhu, Yi; > linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; linville@tuxdriver.com > Subject: Re: [Ipw2100-devel] [PATCH] ipw2200: increase scan timeout > > 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. It seems harmless to me also, and if anyone is getting burned by it timing out before a scan is complete, then it seems like a good idea. It's just a "safety net", and should not affect the *actual* time spent scanning. -- Ben -- > > Acked-by: Reinette Chatre > > Thank you > > Reinette > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move > Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based > applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize > is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > ipw2100-devel mailing list > ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipw2100-devel >