From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kristoffer Ericson Subject: Re: [Bug #14267] Disassociating atheros wlan Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:20:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20091123142048.83200933.kristoffer.ericson@gmail.com> References: <7qTjLRFNcGF.A.eSE.kCACLB@chimera> <4B08258E.9050607@gmail.com> <1258886823.7094.101.camel@johannes.local> <20091122162936.ac603ad1.kristoffer.ericson@gmail.com> <1258969366.7094.136.camel@johannes.local> <20091123105433.d0eb2477.kristoffer.ericson@gmail.com> <1258972425.7094.144.camel@johannes.local> <20091123114832.0a7730a7.kristoffer.ericson@gmail.com> <1258973421.7094.152.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8u0flbKlZij7S7nXfTa22VEN6BWk0rkSexRzKP9yH18=; b=t+se7r5vvRYQFMtI2too/+BEowJf03Ezty0ledVZYW5jmZu3/ZmB1XIjmq1zuivCLS Aw8IdH+QBiU6TmFVP/OBbdeKhpQsl8+OJAXr5pjo4T3obttPEq8ZI6pC3zBHS788O7x9 VPCiJ8Y3SsSGPj81yTX597dRVb87vwdSu5G40= In-Reply-To: <1258973421.7094.152.camel-YfaajirXv2244ywRPIzf9A@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Johannes Berg Cc: "Justin P. Mattock" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , "John W. Linville" On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:50:21 +0100 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:48 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:33:45 +0100 > > Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:54 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > + hw->wiphy->ps_default = false; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > I tried the patch last night as I said, thought that it was working. But not long after > > > > sending that email I started seeing those disassociations again (that not appear at all in 2.6.30). > > > > So doesnt seem like it was due to that after all. :( > > > > > > But then how reliable is your bisect result? The effect of the patch in > > > question would've been completely disabled by this line. > > > > Will have to ask Justin about that. > > Oh, sorry. Maybe you're just running into different bugs that have the > same visible effect? Its quite possible I guess. I will do an bisect and see if I can get anymore output. > > johannes -- Kristoffer Ericson