Sweet, thankyou!
-a
On 30 October 2013 12:17, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:27:30PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> > I've filed a PR.
>> >
>> > Please update to -HEAD and test.
>>
>> Ok thanks, will do.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:27:30PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > I've filed a PR.
> >
> > Please update to -HEAD and test.
>
> Ok thanks, will do. Probably I won't be able before tomorrow though.
Seems to work as before, thank
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:27:30PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I've filed a PR.
>
> Please update to -HEAD and test.
Ok thanks, will do. Probably I won't be able before tomorrow though.
Stefan
___
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.fre
I've filed a PR.
Please update to -HEAD and test.
Thanks!
-adrian
On 28 October 2013 15:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Yup! So, the difference is in the rate being selected.
>
> It looks like the remote end is just plainly not ACKing the 11n
> management frame being sent; but it totally A
Hi!
Yup! So, the difference is in the rate being selected.
It looks like the remote end is just plainly not ACKing the 11n
management frame being sent; but it totally ACKs the 11b CCK frame
being sent.
So, thanks for pointing that out. I'll go and err, "fix" this mistake.
The driver should be do
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:07:17PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Yeah:
>
> Oct 28 19:43:43 mole kernel: iwn5000_tx_done: qid 3 idx 4 retries 7
> nkill 0 rate a902 duration 686 status 83
>
> status 0x83 is LONG_LIMIT, which meant it tried to transmit and it
> failed to get an ACK each time.
>
> Th
Yeah:
Oct 28 19:43:43 mole kernel: iwn5000_tx_done: qid 3 idx 4 retries 7
nkill 0 rate a902 duration 686 status 83
status 0x83 is LONG_LIMIT, which meant it tried to transmit and it
failed to get an ACK each time.
The rate control says:
0x02: the rate in question
bit 8: MCS
bit 11: HT40
bits 14
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:17:02AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Ping, any response?
>
> I'd like to narrow down what's going on here.
http://pastebin.com/veDsb0Xj
Does this help in any way?
Stefan
___
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:17:02AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Ping, any response?
>
> I'd like to narrow down what's going on here.
Yeah, I'll have results soon, at the moment rebuilding my kernel.
Stefan
___
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
ht
Ping, any response?
I'd like to narrow down what's going on here.
Thanks!
-adrian
On 27 October 2013 09:04, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hm, ok.
>
> Can you compile it with IWN_DEBUG and IEEE80211_DEBUG, then do this:
>
> sysctl dev.iwn.0.debug=0x1
> wlandebug +rate
>
> I'd like to see what the sel
Hm, ok.
Can you compile it with IWN_DEBUG and IEEE80211_DEBUG, then do this:
sysctl dev.iwn.0.debug=0x1
wlandebug +rate
I'd like to see what the selected rate is and what the logged reason
for failing to transmit is.
I have a 5100 and it works totally fine for me.
Thanks!
-adrian
On 27 Oc
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:44:54PM +, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Author: adrian
> Date: Fri Oct 25 19:44:53 2013
> New Revision: 257133
> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/257133
>
> Log:
> Temporarily disable multi-rate retry (link quality) and eliminate rate
> index lookups.
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
