Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:49036 "EHLO
	mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1758982Ab1FASKp convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:10:45 -0400
Received: by qwk3 with SMTP id 3so32808qwk.19
        for <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20110601190929.244c57ed@boulder.homenet>
References: <4CEAB969.20702@lwfinger.net>
	<1290451982.20888.2.camel@maggie>
	<4CEAC095.7020706@lwfinger.net>
	<BANLkTimjRA5CsSDp_+LrGq8PNgaR4JFD=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC9853A.1090508@lwfinger.net>
	<BANLkTimBpGRxfidpE4hYCVscmX-Hy5q5jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=TohOdjurvgqZT8=GXKbWfNe4v+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110601114839.433ae42d@boulder.homenet>
	<BANLkTin_RnMV3KnGS4qYPtMVxCuW=Vj7mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110601130842.077da1c3@boulder.homenet>
	<BANLkTi=2xYrrjEdHuYCKFKy4H2EXoUGQuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110601160101.75e30b3d@boulder.homenet>
	<BANLkTim9pQc+yxdQLSL1-6VNiyM6_tvJ6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110601184931.499557c6@boulder.homenet>
	<BANLkTi=Cm1o8HVqugC6JNooP8h+HpJ=aRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110601190929.244c57ed@boulder.homenet>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:10:44 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=j7gZq2U8QOXBLAPzN4_9DQUm7=A@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20110601_201047_715702_5E1D5DAF)
Subject: Re: b43 error under heavy load
From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <zajec5@gmail.com>
To: Chris Vine <chris@cvine.freeserve.co.uk>
Cc: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
	wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	=?UTF-8?Q?Michael_B=C3=BCsch?= <mb@bu3sch.de>,
	b43-dev <b43-dev@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

2011/6/1 Chris Vine <chris@cvine.freeserve.co.uk>:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:03:56 +0200
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/6/1 Chris Vine <chris@cvine.freeserve.co.uk>:
>> > The one which failed caused the cessation of
>> > wireless traffic, and was accompanied by the debug log reports of
>> > out of order TX status earlier referred to, and with only one
>> > single report
>>
>> As I said, I don't really suspect any relation between full TX ring
>> and out of order problems anymore.
>>
>> But it won't hurt to ask just in case:
>> Did you see relation between this single "Stopped TX ring 1" and
>> massive out of order messages? Did out of order messages starter right
>> after "Stopped TX ring 1" one?
>
> The "Stopped TX ring 1" message was near the end (but not at the end)
> of the out of order messages. It was definitely not at the beginning of
> the out of order messages.

Thanks. That confirmed for me, there is no relation.

-- 
Rafał