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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).