Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:43905 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752130Ab0EFSaW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2010 14:30:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:22:33 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: reinette chatre Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "johannes@sipsolutions.net" , Adel Gadllah Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: recalculate average tpt if not current Message-ID: <20100506182232.GB4167@tuxdriver.com> References: <1272907549-25847-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <1272908934.7879.5748.camel@rchatre-DESK> <1272909307.7879.5759.camel@rchatre-DESK> <1273162268.2226.2503.camel@rchatre-DESK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1273162268.2226.2503.camel@rchatre-DESK> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 09:11:08AM -0700, reinette chatre wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 10:55 -0700, reinette chatre wrote: > > From: Reinette Chatre > > > > We currently have this check as a BUG_ON, which is being hit by people. > > Previously it was an error with a recalculation if not current, return that > > code. > > > > The BUG_ON was introduced by: > > commit 3110bef78cb4282c58245bc8fd6d95d9ccb19749 > > Author: Guy Cohen > > Date: Tue Sep 9 10:54:54 2008 +0800 > > > > iwlwifi: Added support for 3 antennas > > > > ... the portion adding the BUG_ON is reverted since we are encountering the error > > and BUG_ON was created with assumption that error is not encountered. > > > > Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre > > --- > > I noticed this patch in your wireless-next-2.6 pull request. Since it is > addressing a system hang issue, could it perhaps be included in > wireless-2.6 also? I should have included the bug report reference for > this purpose, sorry ... it is > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588021 I didn't send it that way because a) that code has been there for a really long time; and b) the reporter couldn't reliably reproduce the bug and therefore can't reliably test the fix. While I agree that the fix looks harmless, no update is zero-risk. Can you reliably hit that code? Has it been tested enough that we should risk holding-up 2.6.34's release for it? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.