!
prism54usb: probe of 3-1:1.0 failed with error -110
See:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242638
Signed-off-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
linux-2.6.23-0.15.rc0.git1.fc8/drivers/net/wireless/mac80211/p54/prism54usb.c
2007-07-16 20:16:00.0
Dear All:
Our IS/IT in their infinite wisdom made us to switch from ESP to UDP
encapsulation for the VPN. It worked ok for a while, but the following
seems to happen now (not sure how recently it started, sorry).
At first, everything works fine. A VPN client sends its packets through
a masqueradin
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:38:05 +0100 (BST), Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- linux.orig/net/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
> +++ linux/net/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
> @@ -779,33 +779,44 @@ int ieee80211_rx(struct ieee80211_device
> return 0;
> }
>
> -/* Filter out unrelated packets,
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:45:22 -0700, "Jouni Malinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] I can guess now what your concern is, even though
> > you failed to articulate it: a single-threaded GUI application,
> > which cannot respond to events when blocked in getting scan results.
> > If that's the
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:00:51 -0700, "Jouni Malinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That could be blocking an ioctl call for couple of seconds
> and would be quite horrible for single threaded programs.
I would say that waiting for couple of seconds in the kernel would
be quite wonderful for single
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:12:55 -0400, Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This sounds completely wrong. Do you guys remember the Subject: string
> > of this discussion by any chance?
> There are two options for tools: (a) request scan and block on GIWSCAN
> until it doesn't return EAGAIN, o
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:58:06 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Below patch was developed after discussion with Daniel Drake who
> mentioned to me that wireless tools expect an EAGAIN return from getscan
> so that they can wait for the scan to finish before printing out the
> results.
This sounds
Implement proper set_bssid_filter. If filters are not set, firmware receives
management frames only (instead of everything), so this is necessary.
Signed-off-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
You know guys, it's very tough to be a moron. All this time I was trying
to set
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:12:02 -0500, "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I pulled a couple of hours ago, and it seems like an old version
> > again, though is there and is correct.
> > I'm going to send the remainder in smaller, self-consistent chunks.
>
> I only pushed the updated
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:59:19 -0500, "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> That sounds great. BTW, I massaged the patches you had sent me and
> got them consolidated with the older patches and pushed out to the
> 'master' branch of wireless-2.6. Please take a look to make sure
> that e
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:52:25 -0500, "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I should be able to take the master-based patches you sent me
> and massage them into wireless-2.6 -- no need for you to do it.
Thanks. BTW, I talked to DaveM a minute ago on an unrelated subject, and we
touched
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:15:24 -0500, "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, sorry. I renamed the softmac branch as "devel" -- it has the
> stuff that was on the softmac branch, other than softmac component
> itself.
Aww dang, I already sent it to you diffed against "master".
> Wit
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:06:24 -0500, "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Pete, I couldn't get this to apply. It seemed like there was a
> mismatch between your codebase and mine.
I removed my repository and cloned your wireless-2.6 again. It turned out
that the branch "softmac" was r
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:06:24 -0500, "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Pete, I couldn't get this to apply. It seemed like there was a
> mismatch between your codebase and mine.
>
> Could I trouble you to rebase off the current wireless-2.6 tree
> and resubmit?
By all means. I ran
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 01:11:28 +0100, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But: This shows us that the struct ieee80211_txb is useless
> and should be eliminated. Look at how d80211 handles fragments.
> It sends every single fragment in an skb to the driver. I think
> this is _much_ more painl
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 00:43:24 +0100, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but I think the fix is to save the txb when transmitting
> the last fragment rather than the first.
This was my idea at first, too.
> > + txb->fragments[i] = NULL; /* Take skb from ieee80211_txb_free */
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:48:28 -0600, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As stated in a comment, the ipw2200 driver uses several routines that were
> borrowed
> from ieee80211_geo.c.
> Signed-Off-By: Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks good to me, though I only made a cursory glance to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:06:29 +0100, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you agree with waiting until the wireless summit at osdl is over?
My experience with Kernel Summit was that things "decided" at a summit
lose their significance within a month as new developments happen and
idea
Fix broken is_beacon().
Signed-off-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
This wart came with -rc3. The -rc2 was ok. It's not like nobody noticed:
Johannes' snapshot has a different fix (which is somewhat defective,
he declared a CPU-order word as __be16). But the strangest t
Dear Collegues,
I have come to consider BUG_ON generally harmful. The idea of an assert is
to prevent a program to execute past a point where its state is known
erroneous, thus preventing it from dealing more damage to the data
(or hiding the traces of malfunction). The problem is, in kernel this
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:39:16 +0100, Carlos Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/prism54usb/isl_sm.h
> b/drivers/net/wireless/prism54usb/isl_sm.h
> index 9e41587..c39bb48 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/prism54usb/isl_sm.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/prism54us
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:23:19 +0100, Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 08:23:41AM -0800, Kris Katterjohn wrote:
>
> > This changes "signed long" to "long".
>
> Hmmm, is 'long' guaranteed to be signed?
Yes, it is. Only char can be signed or unsigned depending.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:13:39 +0100 (CET), Ulrich Kunitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [...] Register accesses in USB devices should be
> able to sleep. However the 80211 stacks I've seen so far have a
> fixed set of capabilities and do also assume, that at the driver
> layer everything can be done
The ioctl was renamed from SIOCSIWNAME to SIOCSIWCOMMIT.
Signed-off-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Obviously this makes no difference for the code. It helps grepping only.
diff -urpN -X dontdiff linux-2.6.15/include/net/iw_handler.h
linux-2.6.15-wlan/include/net/iw_han
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:48:49 -0800, "Kris Katterjohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a diff from 2.6.15. It compiles fine and seems to work fine.
> - else if (memcmp(eth->h_dest, dev->dev_addr, ETH_ALEN))
> + else if (compare_ether_addr(eth->h_dest, dev->dev_addr))
Please never mind
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:48:49 -0800, "Kris Katterjohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - if (memcmp(eth->h_dest, dev->broadcast, ETH_ALEN) == 0)
> + if (!compare_ether_addr(eth->h_dest, dev->broadcast))
Wait a second. compare_ether_addr returns a boolean, not an error code.
26 matches
Mail list logo
