Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:47422 "EHLO mail-px0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753341Ab0IWSHK (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:07:10 -0400 Received: by pxi10 with SMTP id 10so543084pxi.19 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:07:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1285254226.3770.171.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1285201037-29405-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <20100923002240.GA4484@tux> <1285231958.3691.10.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1285254157.3770.169.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1285254226.3770.171.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:06:49 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi-test: add simple roam test script To: Johannes Berg Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "jiajia.zheng@intel.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "wifi-test-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , Luis Rodriguez , Paul Stewart Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 17:02 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 07:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> > >> After roaming for a good while, this is what I got, not sure >> > >> yet what caused the NULL pointer dereference... Am I the only >> > >> one able to reproduce this? >> > > >> > >> [ 3276.730081] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000003 >> > >> [ 3276.730148] IP: [<0000000000000003>] 0x3 >> > > >> > > Something called a NULL pointer function pointer. Rafael recently said >> > > "cpuidle is buggy" when a similar issue came up: >> > > http://mid.gmane.org/201009182344.12498.rjw@sisk.pl >> > >> > But that seems related to ACPI, no? On my box I never suspended, I >> > just associated and disassociated rapidly between two peers. The only >> > suspicion I have is its obviously right after adding the STA peer. >> >> Yes, but he said suspend/resume _fixed_ it :-) > > Hm never mind, misunderstood the original report ... suspend + wait + > resume was what was broken. > > But still, it's a NULL pointer call, and I can't really see how that > would happen. Hey so how do we know its a function ? Luis