Return-path: Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:46952 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750993Ab0DVVis (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:38:48 -0400 Subject: Re: rc80211_minstrel.c:70 WARNING with 2.6.34-rc4 From: Pavel Roskin To: Felix Fietkau Cc: Richard Zidlicky , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4BCC9A27.9000104@openwrt.org> References: <20100418085653.GA7345@linux-m68k.org> <1271694855.9026.51.camel@mj> <20100419174100.GA5312@linux-m68k.org> <4BCC95CC.7030109@openwrt.org> <20100419175508.GB5312@linux-m68k.org> <4BCC9A27.9000104@openwrt.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:38:41 -0400 Message-Id: <1271972321.12589.2.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 20:00 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > can that happen when both ends are configured to a fixed rate of 11M? > No idea. I've never used fixed-rate. I guess it could, if it uses 11M > for communicating with a peer that it for some reason did not enable > this rate for. I think if there is a legitimate condition when it can happen, we should not be using WARN_ON. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin