On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 09:35:12AM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:30:41PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed report.
> >
> > > iwm0: sending assoc_req to 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f on channel 6 mode 11g
> > > iwm0: association failed
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:30:41PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the detailed report.
>
> > iwm0: sending assoc_req to 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f on channel 6 mode 11g
> > iwm0: association failed (status 10) for 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f
> > iwm0: association timed out for
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:12:29PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> On 2020-05-19 16:30, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed report.
> >
> >>iwm0: sending assoc_req to 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f on channel 6 mode 11g
> >>iwm0: association failed (status 10) for
On 2020-05-19 21:15, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>>>
>> Would it be possible to get an errata patch for this, so that -stable
>> users can get it fixed?
>
> If we decide. Once it settles in tree.
>
> For now, no.
>
> I'm think you don't get it. That change may break
Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> On 2020-05-19 16:30, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed report.
> >
> >>iwm0: sending assoc_req to 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f on channel 6 mode 11g
> >>iwm0: association failed (status 10) for 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f
> >>iwm0: association timed
On 2020-05-19 16:30, Theo Buehler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the detailed report.
>
>> iwm0: sending assoc_req to 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f on channel 6 mode 11g
>> iwm0: association failed (status 10) for 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f
>> iwm0: association timed out for 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f
>
> I saw
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed report.
> iwm0: sending assoc_req to 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f on channel 6 mode 11g
> iwm0: association failed (status 10) for 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f
> iwm0: association timed out for 18:e8:29:11:2b:2f
I saw the same problem on my access point. This is fixed in
