From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752706AbXCEHEq (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:04:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752704AbXCEHEp (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:04:45 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:55180 "EHLO perch.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752700AbXCEHEp (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:04:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:02:48 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Matt Mackall Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhu@intel.com, jketreno@linux.intel.com, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: Recent wireless breakage (ipw2200, iwconfig, NetworkManager) Message-ID: <20070305070248.GA30699@kroah.com> References: <20070304220857.GH23311@waste.org> <20070305011625.GA7681@kroah.com> <20070305064229.GJ23311@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070305064229.GJ23311@waste.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:42:29AM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 05:16:25PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 04:08:57PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > Recent kernels are having troubles with wireless for me. Two seemingly > > > related problems: > > > > > > a) NetworkManager seems oblivious to the existence of my IPW2200 > > > b) Manual iwconfig waits for 60s and then reports: > > > > > > Error for wireless request "Set Encode" (8B2A) : > > > SET failed on device eth1 ; Operation not supported. > > > > Do you have CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED enabled? If not, please do as that > > will keep you from having to change any userspace code. > > No, it's disabled. Will test once I'm done tracking down the iwconfig > problem. From the help text for SYSFS_DEPRECATED: > > If you are using a distro that was released in 2006 or > later, it should be safe to say N here. > > If we need an as-yet-unreleased HAL without it, I would say the above > should be changed to 2008 or so. If Debian actually cuts a release in > the next few months, you might make that 2010. Well, just because Debian has such a slow release cycle, should the rest of the world be forced to follow suit? :) When I originally wrote that, I thought Debian would have already done their release, my mistake... thanks, greg k-h