Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:49211 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755661Ab2ITPZx (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:25:53 -0400 Message-ID: <1348154789.4161.40.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120920_172556_978523_4224D774) Subject: Re: regression: tethering fails in 3.5 with iwlwifi From: Johannes Berg To: Eric Dumazet Cc: artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com, Eric Dumazet , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:26:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1348154379.31352.169.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (sfid-20120920_171943_734306_37BE61D5) References: <1347361823.26457.3.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1DC40B07CD6EC041A66726C271A73AE6195AE9C8@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <1347631355.5263.19.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1347640763.5263.24.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1347892887.7112.9.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1348142775.2388.10.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1348144524.4161.26.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1348145936.2388.18.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1348147353.2388.19.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1348151149.31352.109.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1348151876.2388.24.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1348152971.31352.140.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (sfid-20120920_165616_301862_3EBAF30C) <1348153522.4161.37.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1348154379.31352.169.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (sfid-20120920_171943_734306_37BE61D5) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 17:19 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 17:05 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Note I think the failing packets are dhcp packets, and connman seems to > > use an AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP socket for those, and binds it > > to the right device. I'd be quite surprised though if UDP code had > > issues with paged Rx?? > > > > It could be a checksum issue ? Hmm, would paged RX make a difference there? But I guess it could be, our packets are all CHECKSUM_NONE. johannes