On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:50:21 +0100
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:48 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:33:45 +0100
> > Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:54 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > + hw->wiphy->ps_defa
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:48 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:33:45 +0100
> Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:54 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> >
> > > > > > + hw->wiphy->ps_default = false;
> > > > > > +
> >
> > > I tried the patch last night as
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:33:45 +0100
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:54 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
>
> > > > > + hw->wiphy->ps_default = false;
> > > > > +
>
> > I tried the patch last night as I said, thought that it was working. But
> > not long after
> > sending that
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:54 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> > > > + hw->wiphy->ps_default = false;
> > > > +
> I tried the patch last night as I said, thought that it was working. But not
> long after
> sending that email I started seeing those disassociations again (that not
> appear
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:42:46 +0100
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 16:29 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
>
> > > + hw->wiphy->ps_default = false;
> > > +
> > > hw->queues = 4;
> > > hw->max_rates = 4;
> > > hw->channel_change_time = 5000;
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Johannes, am I
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 16:29 +0100, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> > + hw->wiphy->ps_default = false;
> > +
> > hw->queues = 4;
> > hw->max_rates = 4;
> > hw->channel_change_time = 5000;
> >
> >
>
> Johannes, am I correct in thinking that this also solves the decreased signal
> stren
Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:19:54 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
On Sunday 22 November 2009, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 09:38 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
I did a bisect yesterday on this, and the results
seemed to have worked over
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:47:03 +0100
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 09:38 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>
> > I did a bisect yesterday on this, and the results
> > seemed to have worked over here by reverting:
> >
> > 75e6c3b72b3ab01c47629f3fbd0fed4e6550bf3a
> > cfg80211: lower dy
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:19:54 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Sunday 22 November 2009, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 09:38 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> >
> > > I did a bisect yesterday on this, and the results
> > > seemed to have worked over here by reverting:
> > >
Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 09:38 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
I did a bisect yesterday on this, and the results
seemed to have worked over here by reverting:
75e6c3b72b3ab01c47629f3fbd0fed4e6550bf3a
cfg80211: lower dynamic PS timeout to 100ms
if Kristoffer can try rever
On Sunday 22 November 2009, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 09:38 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>
> > I did a bisect yesterday on this, and the results
> > seemed to have worked over here by reverting:
> >
> > 75e6c3b72b3ab01c47629f3fbd0fed4e6550bf3a
> > cfg80211: lower dynamic PS
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 09:38 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> I did a bisect yesterday on this, and the results
> seemed to have worked over here by reverting:
>
> 75e6c3b72b3ab01c47629f3fbd0fed4e6550bf3a
> cfg80211: lower dynamic PS timeout to 100ms
>
> if Kristoffer can try reverting this one
Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:38:22 -0800
"Justin P. Mattock" wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list o
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:38:22 -0800
"Justin P. Mattock" wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> >
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:01:19AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:04:23 -0800
"Justin P. Mattock" wrote:
> Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:07:09 -0800
> > "Justin P. Mattock" wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Im still hitting this so basicly using 2.6.30 until it get sorted. Will
> >
Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:07:09 -0800
"Justin P. Mattock" wrote:
Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
Im still hitting this so basicly using 2.6.30 until it get sorted. Will try and
make
some time to test the different commits. Last time I waited for it to
disconnect w
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:07:09 -0800
"Justin P. Mattock" wrote:
> Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Im still hitting this so basicly using 2.6.30 until it get sorted. Will try
> > and make
> > some time to test the different commits. Last time I waited for it to
> > disconnect which
> > could
Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
Im still hitting this so basicly using 2.6.30 until it get sorted. Will try and
make
some time to test the different commits. Last time I waited for it to
disconnect which
could take 10-40min. Since it depends on the network load Im now going to
increase
the load to
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:01:19 +0100 (CET)
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.30 and
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:53:18 -0800
"Justin P. Mattock" wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> >
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:31:55 +0100 (CET)
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.30 and
On Monday 26 October 2009, Kristoffer Ericson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:31:55 +0100 (CET)
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on th
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Monday 12 October 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > introduced
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Monday 05 October 2009, Justin Mattock wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of kn
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Pl
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
34 matches
Mail list logo
