From: Nils Radtke <Nils.Radtke@Think-Future.de>
To: reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG in iwl-agn-rs.c:2076, WAS: iwlagn + some accesspoint == hardlock
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:57:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100604165732.GB28003@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1275501085.2091.28873.camel@rchatre-DESK>
Hi Reinette,
BTW, this:
Jun 3 12:05:43 localhost kernel: [174170.391756] iwlagn 0000:03:00.0:
TX Power requested while scanning!
happened even w/o toggling radio switch, so this seems not uniquely
related to toggling the radio switch.
On mer 2010-06-02 @ 10-51-25 -0700, reinette chatre wrote:
# On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 13:12 -0700, Nils Radtke wrote:
#
# > This line indicates the first timestamp _after_ the crash:
# > May 31 17:35:19 localhost kernel: [ 69.488456]
# >
# > The crash happened after site A and on site B. Just arrived, opened lid and *crash*.
# >
# > I noticed in iwl-agn-rs.c:2080:
# > BUG_ON(window->average_tpt != ((window->success_ratio *
# > tbl->expected_tpt[index] + 64) / 128));
# > Could that be again the point that hit me today when the machine crashed once?
# > Would you mind changing this into a milder WARN? That way I wouldn't hit the wall
# > that hard. And I would notice it anyway while skimming the logs as we still are on the
# > hunt. It's more maintainable if it's a WARN in the src instead of me patching it w/ any
# > update..
# >
# > Wasn't this BUG_ON a WARNING in .33.3? (didn't check..)
#
# Seems like you performed the testing without the patch that we used to
# address the hang issue from the beginning of this thread. Please see
Indeed, that's what it feels like. It is just so annoying, that one..
You can't work w/ the kernel drivers. That's a shame.
BTW, iff the patch for the BUG_ON is in kernel src since 2.6.28, that might
explain a lot of crashes before where I haven't never been able to track it down.
Even more, those days I hadn't a chance to do more on this. Unlike now.
# http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=127290931304496&w=2 - that thread
# also explains why the patch is not in 2.6.34.
It should definitely and absolutely be merged (change the BUG_ON into WARNING).
Even if, like hypothesized, the bug is hidden elsewhere, a BUG_ON doesn't get
me far, it's killing every chance to advance to a solution. How am I supposed
to investigate w/ the kernel crashing? BTW, I don't like working w/ a Linux
kernel that kills my work regularly, I think that's understandable. If I needed
a break from work, I'd set an alarm.
I've seen a bugreport on this issue on the redhat bts referencing my word about
this BUG_ON only getting hit w/ cisco APs. There's a wide range of AP manufacturers
out there in the city. But only cisco APs are crashing this driver. Admittedly, only
on one single location, but anyway it's a cisco. Always the same MAC, unless they
use to reassign MAC addresses, though..
I think it's a tough one, if an AP is able to crash the driver.
I haven't yet received a comment of yours regarding my many other questions in
my previous message. I am willing to help investigate more, assist in other ways
than testing only (always only doing testing isn't a way to keep up fun..)
# I think it is time to move this discussion to a bug report so that it
# can be tracked better. Please open a new bug at
# http://bugzilla.intellinuxwireless.org/
As you wish. It's probably a good idea. But I still miss the registration mail
from bz, did register yesterday.
So, please see to it, that the patch rendering the BUG_ON into a
WARNING finds it's way back in.
Thank you very much,
Nils Radtke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-04 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-03 19:17 kernel BUG in iwl-agn-rs.c:2076, WAS: iwlagn + some accesspoint == hardlock NilsRadtkelkml
2010-05-03 19:22 ` John W. Linville
2010-05-06 9:14 ` Christian Borntraeger
2010-05-06 16:28 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-11 15:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2010-05-11 17:21 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-12 15:18 ` Christian Borntraeger
2010-05-10 18:36 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-10 23:32 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-12 14:39 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-12 23:14 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-13 10:34 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-13 11:32 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-13 16:31 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-14 17:45 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-13 15:05 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-17 23:19 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-20 12:15 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-20 18:33 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-31 20:12 ` Nils Radtke
2010-06-02 17:51 ` reinette chatre
2010-06-04 16:57 ` Nils Radtke [this message]
2010-06-08 17:46 ` reinette chatre
2010-06-10 14:22 ` Nils Radtke
2010-06-10 16:19 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-20 12:31 ` Nils Radtke
2010-05-20 18:26 ` reinette chatre
2010-05-20 22:30 ` David Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-05-11 9:41 Nils Radtke
2010-04-29 18:26 kernel BUG in iwl-agn-rs.c:2076,was: iwlagn + some accesspoint = hardlock lkml
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=20100604165732.GB28003@localhost \
--to=nils.radtke@think-future.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
/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).