2009/3/3 Bob Copeland :
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 12:21:52AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> I would prefer that we don't hide problems.
>>
>> If we don't know why we cannot get a valid rate, we should use WARN_ON
>> and find out why and when it happens. I'm fine with using a bogus rate
>> with WARN
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:03:39PM +, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
>
> Note that I was able to reproduce it again : )
By the way, here's the theoretical race I was alluding to. ath5k_reset
happens pretty frequently when scanning, and it's possible that the rx
tasklet is run on another cpu after i
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 12:21:52AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> I would prefer that we don't hide problems.
>
> If we don't know why we cannot get a valid rate, we should use WARN_ON
> and find out why and when it happens. I'm fine with using a bogus rate
> with WARN_ON.
So here is at least stag
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 08:59:39AM -0500, Bob Copeland wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:01:39PM +, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
>> > It has been days since the original BUG occurred and further it
>> > originally had happened in a -tip k
