> > Around 23 hours have elapsed.
> >
>> WiFi seems to be working 100% of time. It is always at least lightly
>loaded.
45h - all OK.
> great and thanks a lot for testing!
Doesn't really require _doing_ anything except building patched kernels. And
it is in my best interest to test the driver for the WiFi card I use...
> rather than removing the suspicious code
> this is properly fixed by us with this patch.
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=132595161516806&w=2
Ah, I saw the message and wondered whether it is the fix I needed and what
patches should I apply.
So, I am building 3.2 with two patches: over/under-flow catcher (pity that
it seems to be on a multiple-times-per-second codepath and just leaving the
checks there for everyone is suboptimal) and allegedely proper fix. Both
applied OK with a small offset.
2012/1/9 MR <[email protected]>:
>
> ?> > Around 23 hours have elapsed.
> ?> >
> ?>> WiFi seems to be working 100% of time. It is always at least lightly
> ?>loaded.
>
> 45h - all OK.
>
> ?> great and thanks a lot for testing!
>
> Doesn't really require _doing_ anything except building patched kernels. And
> it is in my best interest to test the driver for the WiFi card I use...
>
> ?> rather than removing the suspicious code
> ?> this is properly fixed by us with this patch.
> ?> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=132595161516806&w=2
>
> Ah, I saw the message and wondered whether it is the fix I needed and what
> patches should I apply.
>
> So, I am building 3.2 with two patches: over/under-flow catcher (pity that
> it seems to be on a multiple-times-per-second codepath and just leaving the
> checks there for everyone is suboptimal) and allegedely proper fix. Both
> applied OK with a small offset.
as per our assumption, we should not see those over/underflow errors,
with the patch
above mentioned. please let us know if you hit upon this warnings,
even after the proper fix.
>
>
>
--
shafi