Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37140 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757106AbdEOJdl (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2017 05:33:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 11:33:00 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Arend van Spriel Cc: Kalle Valo , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlegacy: warn when enabling power save Message-ID: <20170515093259.GA16559@redhat.com> (sfid-20170515_113348_044346_155CCAFA) References: <1494835148-12945-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <87ziee5x7i.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> <20170515092037.GA9899@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:25:51AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > 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. I used dev_warn variant, what is consistent with the driver code. Stanislaw