Received: by 2002:a25:824b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d11csp5729127ybn; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 04:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwYfYhM/uApolRRUoW1vseecWf1Wg1VLPmamuoNSvpPPNG+4f/RSnC6ZReA7JcD0BSGXYkt X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:80d9:: with SMTP id a25mr15087594ejx.222.1569757179015; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 04:39:39 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1569757179; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Wy9diyU7NVMSlPQHh80IMCrmOab+l0HPzx+NKdO3NOidn8Qc4HPO86WnBNiMFRjFmv w2+ZT/XFLiVjvRpgiphROSHcyeabUNG1dDJ265ySLjErjZxwc362SHhULYQXhCVT3KL8 LA5wXpS+Q4pTCAVFNaXwoBtKNNXPwc5AVcbUke4LjdAHLl93+LpKaKIHGhq4cGJUUOSK jql8c7T6eM+vwbPJyztdsEGUFopCb91UTKxlduXuJdI4pimlSIxVDdYy8xh38hquMlS3 vQgvNacz5FlCjlnF8YntH5LIh6fW3LXHojwsP95Ddgl0VpWIfh03K6nhyOKCq/LFwJPJ RrIQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=aSgR7q9G/7DADEC8hUlzruTvWUQTIjAUgwhjgevHy9w=; b=l+tWsp2RZMIFFUAlURHF9yG7pFe65YhlvAIm/Vq2iw8ofR/zwn5qb3XJNFXwJ9QFyb KcxTVW8R1bkTPNHOvAnpDpdmfEUAR9ThfSb/UyUN8G4smbIbqlLPrjqj6jkK+Osy3oko yhUJSl4Vt0ZWpAEIej99UnHHVsmdYFixhe3LLr+LlzLubRxzWkIoocTRtT5ceAhwm5Hu E90/6NUgfoVRAykOs2OAitnybD16tvJCwk6kItnQati4wFQq4qVnZL5O+gu/WfU9eoKc tpyiuxb92/PAsOa1K0ySwsbgIWc0C6NFVnBsC6FOYctxJDcI5Ks/5UboEgJKhB6iKgSz mH0w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=SmnxN5GE; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u6si4624196eds.173.2019.09.29.04.38.55; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 04:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=SmnxN5GE; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726702AbfI2Lfu (ORCPT + 99 others); Sun, 29 Sep 2019 07:35:50 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f195.google.com ([209.85.222.195]:42314 "EHLO mail-qk1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725924AbfI2Lfu (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Sep 2019 07:35:50 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f195.google.com with SMTP id f16so5388303qkl.9 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 04:35:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aSgR7q9G/7DADEC8hUlzruTvWUQTIjAUgwhjgevHy9w=; b=SmnxN5GEHmMZXZGRkyACjyKmKTNZGLb53kA5YSRSGNEhY0iN0tqZTX0D0T3wmd1GcJ z5HLHfBmdYwT3PaEhBb9VR9Gl34/xVhov2H4vSh0WuP2AMpEOJkzfH//QJlKNW4fGDd8 +CcU8I872e23I3a0Pnt2G2ft1EGOxtFBWKhcbdG/3L9YpwQCE4FnlJLLVj6U8aB98Ei9 tWkZ+QBTKoMuA3eTt7GAbJo9X9aA/JvOgch+5F17lqdzq3HC1LOeYcXgXLWO6Bf5vl4t 1giLWchSIVaXXfuqHYn+FRA6lmkwwefCpdIK/k4TS1ynWnAKHL6D5SWeLHs03RGoNIb9 USWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aSgR7q9G/7DADEC8hUlzruTvWUQTIjAUgwhjgevHy9w=; b=hwmyouoxuVY/V62NLvNN+O34X2t/nEpgAeqWmFVBXwUDVELNMd0/Flb8epfYhTihdM 6XEEsqztjXfIzrOTScFWiDG4w7JX+LyfSBCly4yPUM2wiLXj+rF0vGTC7Fv/7TRR845E sJDiXiFSu8y42YNAr9gv2vGHK3uH6zEpoVanoZGkiaoTxLVls51bscarMtVwnhjW+mBh HIDU3U3w5HkoSXBp9kRfoxQGPdGEo/xMaVVCDk2qUZDETqYDeg+fviqQ+RWJqHZd4F7k 5PA9EGXO7CdpCuEJwA6ig7p2v1pB+lfo/5GYY0gmZlPvAMnwIQYzj2qts62l/nEP4bsm +Ykg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsCafqWGmyXvx7WAU9aPBgNj8eoPewfIW2BNboRs7oAIOD4Urw q5DQqJ5cW2QlVOoBg3/3WAVOFvoPgCt/7a2XkIVKEA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:5943:: with SMTP id n64mr13515138qkb.95.1569756949242; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 04:35:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9172166a-eb77-a508-ba54-08fdf96912fc@lwfinger.net> <9492be2d-abd1-0e1d-5d80-1a72b0250749@lwfinger.net> <9b6f5c4c-2775-a5c2-0372-f8eb7ec18628@lwfinger.net> In-Reply-To: From: Sergey Kharitonov Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:35:38 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Linux Realtek Wi-Fi support] rtl8192ee related bug To: Larry Finger Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-kernel version of 5.3.1 works, but provides the same poor latency: if you're not downloading something in the background, ping gets higher and higher from around 5ms to around 100ms, then back to ~5. By saying 'unusable' out-of-the kernel driver I mean that changes that I made to it (to work with 5.2.X) no longer help to use it with new 5.3.1. It compiles without errors with several fall-thru warnings, but when I modprobe it, dmesg says (as far as I could understand) that the module was unable to load firmware. But modprobe ends with status code = 0. As a result, there's no wireless device shown by ifconfig or iwconfig at all. On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 8:31 PM Larry Finger wrote: > > On 9/28/19 6:51 AM, Sergey Kharitonov wrote: > > Dear Mr. Finger! > > Today's upgrade to linux 5.3.1 made the OEM Realtek driver (from > > rtl8192ee_revised_5.x.tar.xz) unusable. > > Current rtlwifi_new master and extended branches still contain old > > code which results in a high ping. > > Can you please somehow add your changes described above to git or wherever? > > Those patches were mostly cosmetic and will not affect performance, b ut I will > apply them. > > This mailing list should be discussing the driver in the kernel, not an external > one. Does the in-kernel version not work? > > In addition, "unusable" is not a very descriptive term for a failure. > > Larry