thanks for the reply. I will try it next week when i have more time.
If that doesnt work im thinking if its possible to go from current
back to stable. If i try current and i have problems. It looks
possible but it isnt in FAQ
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#Flavors
im wondering if im missing something.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@stsp.name> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:24:50PM +0200, George Pediaditis wrote:
>> i currently use stable. I updated my system a week ago. How stable is
>> current?
>> I use my laptop for programming (java) and im a bit skeptical about
>> running current.
>
> Generally, -current is fine. But if you don't follow our development
> process at least a bit you might upgrade at a bad moment and run into
> surprises. Most issues will fix themselves after a few days and we're
> always welcoming reports from users running -current since that really
> helps us make the next release better.
>
> I have spent many hours making many changes since 6.0 which fixed
> several issues in the iwm driver and the wireless framework.
> All these fixes will of course ship in 6.1.
> I'm sorry but this kind of problem is not something we officially
> backport fixes to -stable for because it just takes too much time
> on top of all the time already spent on development for -current.
>
> That said, I'll include one fix I made below. I don't know if it
> provides a huge improvement in isolation but if you really want
> to stick with -stable then this patch is worth a shot. I know that
> it compiles but I haven't run this on a 6.0 system myself.
>
> Index: if_iwm.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/if_iwm.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.132
> retrieving revision 1.133
> diff -u -p -r1.132 -r1.133
> --- if_iwm.c 12 Sep 2016 10:18:26 -0000 1.132
> +++ if_iwm.c 21 Sep 2016 12:56:43 -0000 1.133
> @@ -4896,6 +4896,7 @@ iwm_ack_rates(struct iwm_softc *sc, stru
> int *ofdm_rates)
> {
> struct ieee80211_node *ni = &in->in_ni;
> + struct ieee80211_rateset *rs = &ni->ni_rates;
> int lowest_present_ofdm = 100;
> int lowest_present_cck = 100;
> uint8_t cck = 0;
> @@ -4904,15 +4905,19 @@ iwm_ack_rates(struct iwm_softc *sc, stru
>
> if (ni->ni_chan == IEEE80211_CHAN_ANYC ||
> IEEE80211_IS_CHAN_2GHZ(ni->ni_chan)) {
> - for (i = 0; i <= IWM_LAST_CCK_RATE; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < MIN(IWM_FIRST_OFDM_RATE, rs->rs_nrates); i++)
> {
> + if ((rs->rs_rates[i] & IEEE80211_RATE_BASIC) == 0)
> + continue;
> cck |= (1 << i);
> if (lowest_present_cck > i)
> lowest_present_cck = i;
> }
> }
> - for (i = IWM_FIRST_OFDM_RATE; i <= IWM_LAST_NON_HT_RATE; i++) {
> - int adj = i - IWM_FIRST_OFDM_RATE;
> - ofdm |= (1 << adj);
> + for (i = IWM_FIRST_OFDM_RATE;
> + i <= MIN(IWM_LAST_NON_HT_RATE, rs->rs_nrates - 1); i++) {
> + if ((rs->rs_rates[i] & IEEE80211_RATE_BASIC) == 0)
> + continue;
> + ofdm |= (1 << (i - IWM_FIRST_OFDM_RATE));
> if (lowest_present_ofdm > i)
> lowest_present_ofdm = i;
> }
