Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:40222 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750955AbZIYFUq (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:20:46 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.31-git wireless broken From: Johannes Berg To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "John W. Linville" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <1253813740.3868.324.camel@johannes.local> <1253816614.3868.406.camel@johannes.local> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-SMr3CbQWtheGrG4QDc6f" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:20:38 +0200 Message-Id: <1253856038.3868.500.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-SMr3CbQWtheGrG4QDc6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 20:45 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > I've now tried recent Linus -git plus both those patches on both machines= , > but no joy on either. Thanks. > >=20 > > Anyhow, I'm grasping at straws -- can you tell me more about the failur= e > > mode, and possibly enable CONFIG_MAC80211_DEBUG_MENU and > > CONFIG_MAC80211_VERBOSE_DEBUG? >=20 > I enabled those on both machines for that trial, will keep them on for no= w. >=20 > The failure mode is that iwconfig says ESSID:off/any instead of showing > my essid, and I've no connectivity; but you probably need something more > specific than that. >=20 > I'll send you privately the .config of each machine, and the dmesg of > each machine, from that trial. I've just compared the .configs against > what works for 2.6.31, and everything relevant still seems to be there. Very odd. Haven't really looked at the config, but I see the phy0: idle message that indicates you have debug on. However, it's like nothing ever tells the kernel to connect to a network. Are you running wpa_supplicant? > I do wonder if this is an openSUSE interaction, whether another distro > with the same kernel would be fine. I'm not sure why that would be? But then again this is the first I've heard of such a problem. johannes --=-SMr3CbQWtheGrG4QDc6f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABAgAGBQJKvFMiAAoJEODzc/N7+QmaNAMP/jECxQLfahKkt2TStazpOb+l wMUoYAUldqD5x6V7qqneucFjIk+fwHC3XJA4weckbxOa6WBEgM/R5hHjRL0sHBNu XKpUHMX5i/ucTcInBw6xmtBEOLEO4k7lHRlULb0p4ABLKZp7lSB7Gk3sRYHod2zp BxEfZ2NhxRimGFI5U5RuWezmZJzfvRUeShpbTgA5HJ0UXDZBw5BP1QNg63P4KT+g dIW/LZK69NC62uqdtEjTltcYPa1CtzYCrqHC2MryDavSv6ECtO4DqM00ZGIZrETu B0e+HJhee4LQ2XULTHTSAGhUSnaqsVQdyWN3qqRUBS81bNEcvbcVGLvvcy7iEKnl fVr/WTYx38Cc13zicpaYodosfMIEh4Ru2hFhKIxOipFlfs+AfvK/WPO15vRDp9yK zx8tGZplJ/6lHecjo4J8ET1XjPUjK260U784rIQgQci/16gG2o7SCYLPXQ6kkmuy LeUWah/lG6l5TDgF4JAIS2rARf28tejiwSATvdPt/TF/UmXTciOynexNM8U6Z6oF n9FCCNxWJYMJQ1TtNDrNaLoE1Xw3wTCRunpkGVTdEgkrw18npcxwx9qp3hhaxrcl z0Y9IIeawGC8XeHnk68wmYAX5Ze4B0g7CSTKb+b+XhCo33k64UYn22waMq8uX6kE TEM0yShHB+5m5s7ptS1z =cYXk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-SMr3CbQWtheGrG4QDc6f--