On Tue June 15 2010 22:44:40 Holger Schurig wrote:
> @@ -2770,7 +2767,7 @@ ath5k_intr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> * RXE bit is written, but it doesn't
> work at
> * least on older hardware revs.
> *
@@ -2770,7 +2767,7 @@ ath5k_intr(int irq, void *dev_id)
* RXE bit is written, but it doesn't work
at
* least on older hardware revs.
*/
- sc->rxlink = NULL;
+
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:54:43PM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> if we disable interrupts in the chip (ath5k_hw_set_imr) , the hardware does
> not generate any interrupts. so no tasklets will get scheduled...
The tasklet might already be scheduled on another CPU:
cpu0
I am out of the office until 21-06-2010.
I will respond to your message when I return (June 21).
Note: This is an automated response to your message "ath5k-devel Digest,
Vol 33, Issue 28" sent on 15-6-2010 12:00:02.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.___
There were a few places where the sc->rxlink pointer was set to NULL "just in
case". This helps nothing - quite to the contrary it is problematic since it
can create self-linked rx descriptors in the middle of the list of receive
buffers.
Here is an example how this could happen (thanks Bob!):
cp
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:07:21AM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> On Mon June 14 2010 20:43:02 you wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> > > we disable interrupts right after disabling the tasklets, so they should
> > > not be scheduled again, right? actually, w
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> we disable interrupts right after disabling the tasklets, so they should not
> be scheduled again, right? actually, we should disable interrupts first, and
> then disable tasklets... but then it should be safe, no?
Disable interrup
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:41:47AM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> > Did you check that generated object files are the same? I'm sure they
> > are, but it would be an easier way to review than by eye-balling it.
>
> thats a very good idea! i'm not sure what is the best way to do that
> though?...
On Sat June 12 2010 01:16:19 you wrote:
> What's the purpose of ath5k_rx_stop setting sc->rxlink to NULL?
good question. it has the comment /* just in case */ and this is in the HAL
too, so i guess it was just copied here "just in case" and because nobody is
sure we dont need it.
> As Bob point
