Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33924 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934048AbdEOJWb (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2017 05:22:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 11:20:42 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlegacy: warn when enabling power save Message-ID: <20170515092037.GA9899@redhat.com> (sfid-20170515_112248_540817_F76F1331) References: <1494835148-12945-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <87ziee5x7i.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <87ziee5x7i.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:05AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Stanislaw Gruszka writes: > > > iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was > > allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive > > that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes > > with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user > > intervention, so warn about that. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++ > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c > > index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c > > @@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif, > > > > if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) { > > il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS); > > + WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled, > > + "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n"); > > This prints the whole stack trace, right? Isn't that excessive and > fooling the users to think that they found a bug, which would mean more > bug reports sent to us? So maybe a simple printk is better here? I wanted to have back trace to assure problem will not be missed, but I think you have right, I'll post v2. Thanks Stanislaw