Re: [REVERT] be6b38bcb175613f239e0b302607db346472c6b6.v2.6.34-rc3-406 oops with 4965AGN wireless

[Guy, Wey-Yi]

 Hi Viro and Jeff,

On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 11:13 -0700, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:16:43AM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
> > 
> > index 1bd2cd8..83c52a6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
> > @@ -2041,16 +2041,14 @@ static void iwl4965_rx_reply_tx(struct iwl_priv *priv,
> >  				   tx_resp->failure_frame);
> > 
> >  		freed = iwl_tx_queue_reclaim(priv, txq_id, index);
> > -		if (qc && likely(sta_id != IWL_INVALID_STATION))
> > -			priv->stations[sta_id].tid[tid].tfds_in_queue -= freed;
> > +		iwl_free_tfds_in_queue(priv, sta_id, tid, freed);
> 
> So what happens if we hit sta_id == IWL_INVALID_STATION and !txq->sched_retry?
> 
> AFAICS, IWL_INVALID_STATION is 255 and priv->stations[] has only 32 elements.
> And code around that place is
>         if (txq->sched_retry && unlikely(sta_id == IWL_INVALID_STATION)) {
>                 IWL_ERR(priv, "Station not known\n");
>                 return;
>         }
>         if (txq->sched_retry) {
> 		....
> 	} else {
> 		....
> 		the code modified in that chunk
> 		....
> 	}
> so this removal of check for sta_id doesn't look apriori safe...
> 
> I'm not familiar with that code and I don't have the hardware, so this is
> just from RTFS, but... might make sense to replace that call of
> iwl_free_tfds_in_queue with
> 
> 		if (sta_id == IWL_INVALID_STATION)
> 			printk(KERN_ERR "buggered");
> 		else
> 			iwl_free_tfds_in_queue(priv, sta_id, tid, freed);
> 
> and see if that helps and if printk gets triggered.

Maybe this patch looks better, if sched_rety and sta_id ==
IWL_INVALID_ID_STATION, this function already return before reach
iwl_free_tfds_in_queue, so do not have to check for sta_id ==
IWL_INVALID_ID_STATION. the other case, print log if sta_id ==
IWL_INVALID_ID_STATION.

Wey