Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170]:36998 "EHLO mail-lb0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754237Ab3EGJm2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 05:42:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130507084241.GA1581@redhat.com> References: <20130505143803.7e46e4c6@chukar.edge2.net> <20130506123805.GA1602@redhat.com> <20130506083759.556dac76@chukar.edge2.net> <20130506153044.GB1602@redhat.com> <1367854279.8434.13.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1367855046.8434.16.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130507084241.GA1581@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 11:46:07 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20130507_114247_702590_B1DD5A03) Subject: Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to 1672c0e3 From: Emmanuel Grumbach To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: Johannes Berg , Jake Edge , linux-wireless , lkml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >> > > But if so, I would also see >> > > the breakage on my setup, but I don't - it works quite well here. >> > >> > Are you testing on a passive channel? Try with a large beacon interval. >> >> I think most likely what happens is that it's on a passive channel, and >> the firmware drops the TX packet with a bad status. Before the patch, >> we'd just wait sitting on the channel for HZ/5 (200ms) before trying >> again, with the patch we immediately retransmit the packet, which will >> fail again and again until the firmware received a beacon. >> >> If you look at iwlwifi/dvm/, it has some passive_no_rx workaround for >> this, which I don't see in iwlegacy. > > Can you explain why it is named passive_no_rx instead passive_no_tx ? Well, it is basically - passive channel with no rx :-) This means we can't tx. >> I think the best way to solve this would be to do such a thing in >> iwlegacy as well, but until then and for stable maybe we should >> introduce another HW flag to restore the previous mac80211 behaviour? > > I'm not sure if I like to add passive_no_rx to iwlegacy. Stopping queues > and waiting for beacon looks sticky, what happen if beacon will not be > received? > > Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965, > it's simpler workaround ?