From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Jake Edge <jake@lwn.net>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to 1672c0e3
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 17:35:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130507153525.GB1576@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1367934810.8328.30.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:53:30PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > 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?
AFICT, we wake queues only if beacon arrives or mac80211 call drv_config
with BSS_CHANGED_IDLE. I'm not sure if the latter prevent stuck.
> > 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.
Let's make that change as temporary regression workaround, I'll add
passive_no_rx workaround latter. I'll also think if it can stuck or
not.
Stanislaw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-07 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-05 20:38 Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to 1672c0e3 Jake Edge
2013-05-06 12:38 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-05-06 14:37 ` Jake Edge
2013-05-06 15:30 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-05-06 15:31 ` Johannes Berg
2013-05-06 15:44 ` Johannes Berg
2013-05-07 8:42 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-05-07 8:46 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-05-07 13:53 ` Johannes Berg
2013-05-07 15:35 ` Stanislaw Gruszka [this message]
2013-05-07 16:07 ` [PATCH 3.10] iwl4965: workaround connection regression on passive channel Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-05-22 11:59 ` Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to 1672c0e3 Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-05-24 20:28 ` Johannes Berg
2013-05-06 15:11 ` Johannes Berg
2013-05-06 15:21 ` Jake Edge
2013-05-06 15:24 ` Johannes Berg
2013-05-06 15:29 ` Jake Edge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130507153525.GB1576@redhat.com \
--to=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=jake@lwn.net \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.