From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 20 18:05:47 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B998E16AF24; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:05:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27FE13C491; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:05:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1KI4Qak077054; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:04:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id l1KI4QWD077053; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:04:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:04:26 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Sam Leffler Message-ID: <20070220100426.B76388@xorpc.icir.org> References: <200702201545.l1KFjxF8052100@repoman.freebsd.org> <45DB2A80.1060404@errno.com> <20070220094131.A76388@xorpc.icir.org> <45DB3476.1050300@errno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <45DB3476.1050300@errno.com>; from sam@errno.com on Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 09:48:38AM -0800 Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Luigi Rizzo , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/iwi if_iwi.c if_iwivar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:05:47 -0000 On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 09:48:38AM -0800, Sam Leffler wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: ... > > The fact that I am the only one seeing (or reporting) the problem > > does not mean that there is no bug (or i wouldn't spend so much > > time trying to fix it :). > > I'm not arguing this; I just don't like to see changes back-merged w/o a > chance to settle. I've used this driver for a lot and not hit the same > issue you have. Clearly fixing the cause of the lockup is important but > it's also important to get to the root cause which appears to be > elsewhere and likely related to an unstable signal quality. I recall in actually i don't think it is that - i am seeing the problem even with the AP and the laptop in the same room. Just to give a bit of context - my hardware is a Dell X1 laptop with a 2200bg card operating at 2.4GHz, normally in G mode but sometimes also with 11b access points. The lockup occurred with a number of different APs (linksys WAG354, digicom, hamlet, and another few unknown) and variable signal strenghts (reporting anything from 34:0 to 85:0), with and without other AP around). > your original comparison of HEAD against RELENG_6 you found some other > changes that hadn't been backported related to setting the receive actually it was between the version of code before it was committed to the tree (around jan 2006) and the one in the cvs now, and it was for another bug i.e. the inability to retain the association to a specific AP (digicom if i remember well). > sensitivity and bluetooth coexistence. You would do well to look at the > latest linux code (at sourceforge which leads code going into the doing that, in fact... digging in 12k lines of code! cheers luigi