Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to1672c0e3

[Johannes Berg]

On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:42 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:

> Can you explain why it is named passive_no_rx instead passive_no_tx ?

Emmanuel already commented on this, basically the error codes are all
for "I couldn't transmit this frame", so here we have "I couldn't
transmit this frame because it was on a _passive_ channel and there was
_no rx_ yet."

> > I think the best way to solve this would be to do such a thing in
> > iwlegacy as well, but until then and for stable maybe we should
> > introduce another HW flag to restore the previous mac80211 behaviour?
> 
> I'm not sure if I like to add passive_no_rx to iwlegacy. Stopping queues
> and waiting for beacon looks sticky, what happen if beacon will not be
> received?

Good question, do we get stuck? I was assuming we'd time out, but maybe
that's not the case?

> Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965,
> it's simpler workaround ?

Sure, but maybe that loses other semantics that you want?

And anyway it's not complete. If you have a very long beacon interval
(say 1 second) then this could still lead to all probe/auth retries
going out inbetween two beacons since the timeout is just 3*100ms.

johannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/