From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: (sfid-20090315_040645_344726_0E746861) <1237140665.24621.2.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1237140665.24621.2.camel-YfaajirXv2244ywRPIzf9A@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Johannes Berg Cc: Jeff Chua , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers List , Network Development , "John W. Linville" On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 11:06 +0800, Jeff Chua wrote: > > > The commit below is causing problem with associating with the hidden AP as well. > > > 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 is first bad commit > > commit 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 > > Author: Johannes Berg > > Date: Tue Oct 28 18:29:48 2008 +0100 > > > > b43/legacy: remove SSID code > > > > The SSID programmed into the device is used by the ucode only > > to reply to probe requests, a functionality we disable anyway > > because it doesn't fit with the mac80211/hostapd programming > > model. Therefore, it isn't useful to program the SSID into > > device. > > That's not believable, sorry. I know exactly what the microcode uses the > SSID here for, and it never uses it when we're in station mode. Jeff - can you test the kernels before-and-after this commit (with _no_ other changes) and descibe the differences? Johannes - "not believable" is simply not an argument. If Jeff can show a difference, then your disbelief is totally irrelevant, and clearly shows that you are basing your beliefs on incorrect assumptions (like some specific version of firmware that isn't the whole story). Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756540AbZCOSv4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:51:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754162AbZCOSvr (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:51:47 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40460 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752604AbZCOSvq (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:51:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Johannes Berg cc: Jeff Chua , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers List , Network Development , "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28 In-Reply-To: <1237140665.24621.2.camel@johannes.local> Message-ID: References: (sfid-20090315_040645_344726_0E746861) <1237140665.24621.2.camel@johannes.local> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 11:06 +0800, Jeff Chua wrote: > > > The commit below is causing problem with associating with the hidden AP as well. > > > 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 is first bad commit > > commit 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 > > Author: Johannes Berg > > Date: Tue Oct 28 18:29:48 2008 +0100 > > > > b43/legacy: remove SSID code > > > > The SSID programmed into the device is used by the ucode only > > to reply to probe requests, a functionality we disable anyway > > because it doesn't fit with the mac80211/hostapd programming > > model. Therefore, it isn't useful to program the SSID into > > device. > > That's not believable, sorry. I know exactly what the microcode uses the > SSID here for, and it never uses it when we're in station mode. Jeff - can you test the kernels before-and-after this commit (with _no_ other changes) and descibe the differences? Johannes - "not believable" is simply not an argument. If Jeff can show a difference, then your disbelief is totally irrelevant, and clearly shows that you are basing your beliefs on incorrect assumptions (like some specific version of firmware that isn't the whole story). Linus