Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.152]:54421 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933416Ab3EGNxh (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 09:53:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1367934810.8328.30.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130507_155401_386140_9D66A7CC) Subject: Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to 1672c0e3 From: Johannes Berg To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: Jake Edge , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, lkml Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:53:30 +0200 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:42 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Can you explain why it is named passive_no_rx instead passive_no_tx ? Emmanuel already commented on this, basically the error codes are all for "I couldn't transmit this frame", so here we have "I couldn't transmit this frame because it was on a _passive_ channel and there was _no rx_ yet." > > 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? Good question, do we get stuck? I was assuming we'd time out, but maybe that's not the case? > Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965, > it's simpler workaround ? Sure, but maybe that loses other semantics that you want? And anyway it's not complete. If you have a very long beacon interval (say 1 second) then this could still lead to all probe/auth retries going out inbetween two beacons since the timeout is just 3*100ms. johannes