Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:38283 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760622AbdEOJZ7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2017 05:25:59 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id v15so38799698wmv.1 for ; Mon, 15 May 2017 02:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlegacy: warn when enabling power save To: Stanislaw Gruszka , Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <1494835148-12945-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <87ziee5x7i.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> <20170515092037.GA9899@redhat.com> From: Arend van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20170515_112620_445217_A392C107) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 11:25:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170515092037.GA9899@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/15/2017 11:20 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > 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. I think instead of printk, a wiphy_warn() would be better here using hw->wiphy. Regards, Arend