Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

[Johannes Berg]

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 07:55 +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:

> > IOW, if you've pinpointed 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 as
> > being bad, then you should go back and double-check that its parent
> > (in this case 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f) is good.
> > Because if it's parent is also bad, then that just means that you made
> > some mistake in "git bisect".
> > In this case, it really sounds like maybe you marked the parent good, even
> > though you should have marked it bad.
> 
> I should have been more careful, just got thrown off during the last
> few steps of the bisect. But with the bad association to the AP after
> a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9 (iwlwifi: remove implicit
> direct scan), can someone suggest where to go from here?

That actually makes some sense, though I'm convinced the code I removed
there is actually wrong that doesn't mean it couldn't have had positive
side effects too. I'll take a look at it, in the meantime your time
would be better spent trying to capture what's going on on the air
instead of bisecting again.

If you don't have a second device to monitor, you can also create a
monitor interface as such:
	iw dev wlan0 interface add moni0 type monitor flags none

and run tcpdump on the resulting 'moni0' interface while you try to
associate etc. Write the packets to files and send them to me.

Due to this implicit scan modification in the driver that I removed,
however, I won't see scans in that file, so it won't be all that useful,
a capture made on a second device would be much better.

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part