On Thursday 28 September 2006 06:09, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 18:18, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling and association handling code.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 14:55 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 06:09, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 18:18, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:19 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
I'd buy that argument. When the driver gets the deauth message,
shouldn't it be sending an IWAP 00:00:00:00:00:00 wireless event to
userspace?
I thought we did that since a long time now, didn't you actually develop
the initial patch?
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:19 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
I'd buy that argument. When the driver gets the deauth message,
shouldn't it be sending an IWAP 00:00:00:00:00:00 wireless event to
userspace?
I thought we did that since a
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:37 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
Yes, I think I did. My point here wasn't that the driver is _not_
sending those messages (it almost certainly is), but what's _implied_ by
those messages. Namely that, if you're using a tool like wpa_supplicant
and/or NM, when you get a
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:37, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:19 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
I'd buy that argument. When the driver gets the deauth message,
shouldn't it be sending an IWAP 00:00:00:00:00:00
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:43 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:37, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:19 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
I'd buy that argument. When the driver gets the deauth
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:52, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:43 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:37, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:19 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:43 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:37, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:19 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
I'd buy that argument. When the driver gets
On Thursday 28 September 2006 17:16, Larry Finger wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:43 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:37, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:19 -0400, Dan
On Thursday 28 September 2006 11:16, Larry Finger wrote:
First of all, my problem is quite likely caused by a buggy AP. It is a
Linksys WRT54G V5, which is one of those with a VxWorks kernel, not Linux.
I have already reported one bug to Linksys, which they have neither
acknowledged nor fixed!
Michael Wu wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 11:16, Larry Finger wrote:
First of all, my problem is quite likely caused by a buggy AP. It is a
Linksys WRT54G V5, which is one of those with a VxWorks kernel, not Linux.
I have already reported one bug to Linksys, which they have neither
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:52:24AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
I had very good luck with my first AP, a Linksys WRT54G V1, that I
bought a second when the power supply failed in the first. Little did
I know that a VxWorks license costs less than the extra memory needed
to run Linux. Or was it
Jason Lunz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:52:24AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
I had very good luck with my first AP, a Linksys WRT54G V1, that I
bought a second when the power supply failed in the first. Little did
I know that a VxWorks license costs less than the extra memory needed
to run
On Thursday 28 September 2006 19:04, Larry Finger wrote:
Jason Lunz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:52:24AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
I had very good luck with my first AP, a Linksys WRT54G V1, that I
bought a second when the power supply failed in the first. Little did
I know that a
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 19:04, Larry Finger wrote:
Jason Lunz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:52:24AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
I had very good luck with my first AP, a Linksys WRT54G V1, that I
bought a second when the power supply failed in the first. Little
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:52, Dan Williams wrote:
As a counterpoint, does every developer _really_ want to run
wpa_supplicant just to use a WEP-encrypted connection where you may
occasionally get kicked off?
I think
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling and association handling code.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Hi John,
Please apply this fo wireless-2.6 and push it with your
next push of bugfixes.
There are other theoretical raceconditions possible in
Michael Buesch wrote:
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling and association handling code.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This patch doesn't apply.
Index: wireless-2.6/net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_wx.c
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 18:18, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling and association handling code.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This patch doesn't apply.
Oh, linville merged
And a second try seems to hint at some acpi problems on the acer:
bcm43xx: Device resumed.
PM: Writing back config space on device :06:09.0 at offset f (was 34001ff,
writing 5c0010b)
PM: Writing back config space on device :06:09.0 at offset e (was 0,
writing 24fc)
PM: Writing back
Actually, I dont need the rmmod/modprobe of the module, I just need to do
a /et c/init.d/net.eth1 restart. So maybe just an isssue with wpa_supplicant
or a missing ifconfig eth1 up?
Chris
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 19:50, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 18:18,
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 17:26 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling and association handling code.
Unlike the previous patch, this one doesn't apply on top of 2.6.18
(which I'm using as a basis for testing, along with Larry big bcm43xx
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 19:50 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 18:18, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling and association handling code.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I won't try some random other git tree to test things, it's simply not
feasible for me and we need something we can give to distros to backport
so they have something remotely stable (I'm thinking for example about
the upcoming ubuntu edgy which is coming out soon
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 19:43 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I won't try some random other git tree to test things, it's simply not
feasible for me and we need something we can give to distros to backport
so they have something remotely stable (I'm thinking for
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 18:18, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
This fixes some race conditions in the WirelessExtension
handling and association handling code.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This patch doesn't apply.
Oh, linville
27 matches
Mail list logo
