On 22.2.2009 13:20, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 01:01:21PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> The unsupported jumbo message might be a clue. When we jump to the next: >> label, the buffer is at the end of the list in software, while in >> hardware it isn't. In theory, we might hit the bug with rx buffers >> exhaustion, because the test (bf_last == bf) doesn't work as expected then. > > This seems to be happening somewhat regularly now - I've got a small > collections of the warnings (I'll include them below in case they are > any help): [...] > [11207.741042] Object 0xd7060000: 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b > 6b 6b 6b kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk > [11207.741071] Object 0xd7060010: 80 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 30 ab > 1a 32 3f ....ÿÿÿÿÿÿ.0«.2?
All of them are almost the same scenario, the last one was data not beacon, but it's irrelevant. And previously I was wrong, we move the buffer to the end even on hardware side. Thanks so far, I personally see no reason for this to happen yet. _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
