Re: [ath9k-devel] Bug: USB wifi card TL-WN722N (AR9271, ath9k_htc) fails to get DHCP lease

[Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4184 bytes --]

Am 30.06.2014 16:20, schrieb John W. Linville:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:08:01AM +0800, lolilolicon wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote:
>>> On 06/29/2014 04:32 AM, lolilolicon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> % git bisect start 88daf80 010d3c3 35582ad
>>>> 88daf80dcca19ff995cc263592426f734a9702f3 is the first bad commit
>>>>
>>>> What am I getting wrong?
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not an expert in git, but I think you are being too restrictive with
>>> that command. If you do "git bisect start 88daf80 010d3c3", there are ath9k
>>> patches in the code left to test. With the other option "git bisect start
>>> 88daf80 35582ad", git visualize does not show any ath9k changes.
>>
>> In fact it was through `git bisect start 88daf80 010d3c3` that I found
>> out 35582ad was good:
>>
>> % git bisect log
>> # bad: [88daf80dcca19ff995cc263592426f734a9702f3] Merge branch
>> 'master' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-next
>> into for-davem
>> # good: [010d3c3989706d800ae72253773fa6537cc9f74c] bonding: fix
>> bond_arp_rcv() race of curr_active_slave
>> git bisect start '88daf80dcca19ff995cc263592426f734a9702f3'
>> '010d3c3989706d800ae72253773fa6537cc9f74c'
>> # good: [841577c3d33b8a2bff66d1b506d8198b25900bde] Merge branch
>> 'for-john' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jberg/mac80211-next
>> git bisect good 841577c3d33b8a2bff66d1b506d8198b25900bde
>> # good: [e57f1734d87aa0e9a00905ed08888f0c62f56227] mwifiex: add key
>> material v2 support
>> git bisect good e57f1734d87aa0e9a00905ed08888f0c62f56227
>> # good: [0e028ab0fb2da47fd235dafd4159859892e73d08] Merge branch
>> 'master' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless
>> git bisect good 0e028ab0fb2da47fd235dafd4159859892e73d08
>> # good: [41ed1a787c4940d58d5870c633ab6291dd4679dd] wlcore: consider
>> multiple APs when checking active_link_count
>> git bisect good 41ed1a787c4940d58d5870c633ab6291dd4679dd
>> # good: [546c505bdc64c471be33a5ab525458431d718f5e] wcn36xx: Wait
>> longer for SMD commands to complete
>> git bisect good 546c505bdc64c471be33a5ab525458431d718f5e
>> # good: [2ba0b46175967a40773f8be15f6678307fa3f45a] wcn36xx: Rename
>> wcn36xx_vif.ucast_dpu_signature to self_ucast_dpu_sign
>> git bisect good 2ba0b46175967a40773f8be15f6678307fa3f45a
>> # good: [908628db148ed542fcfde1bff9e5d4607f684b73] wcn36xx: Update
>> dtim period before starting BSS
>> git bisect good 908628db148ed542fcfde1bff9e5d4607f684b73
>> # good: [35582ad9d342025653aaf28ed321bf5352488d7f] Staging: rtl8812ae:
>> remove modules field of rate_control_ops
>> git bisect good 35582ad9d342025653aaf28ed321bf5352488d7f
>> # first bad commit: [88daf80dcca19ff995cc263592426f734a9702f3] Merge
>> branch 'master' of
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-next
>> into for-davem
>>
>> I think `git bisect start 88daf80 35582ad` would probably get me a
>> series of good commits and reach 010d3c3, in the same manner.
>>
>> Since 88daf80, which is bad, has two parents which are both good, I
>> feel that it's the merge that produced the bug. Maybe 88daf80 is one
>> of those "evil merges"?
>>
>> % git show 88daf80
>> commit 88daf80dcca19ff995cc263592426f734a9702f3
>> Merge: 010d3c3 35582ad
>> Author: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
>> Date:   Thu Feb 20 15:02:02 2014 -0500
>>
>>     Merge branch 'master' of
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-next
>> into for-davem
> 
> I can't dispute what you are saying, but I also don't see any likely
> candidates in the merge.  There don't seem to have been any conflicts
> in the merge, so nothing for me to have manually (mis-)adjusted.
> 
> My guess would be that there is something that came through the net
> tree (either in wireless or in the core) that ath9k doesn't like.
> Anyone have any suggestions as to what that might be?


Uff... hard to say,
i would prefer to wait for correct git bisect results.
@lolilolicon did you tried "git bisect start v3.14 v3.15" instead of
your restricted variant?

-- 
Regards,
Oleksij


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 278 bytes --]