From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751398Ab3ATHkl (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:40:41 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f51.google.com ([209.85.210.51]:61159 "EHLO mail-da0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750861Ab3ATHkj (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:40:39 -0500 Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:40:24 -0800 (PST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" cc: "sedat.dilek@gmail.com" , "Berg, Johannes" , "ilw@linux.intel.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: iwlwifi: regression in 3.8-rc4 and 3.7.3 In-Reply-To: <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB301920DA0@HASMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB301920DA0@HASMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > After sending the first 2MB, scp over wireless becomes unbearably > > > slow, with frequent stalls: on this ThinkPad T420s running 3.8-rc4 or 3.7.3. > > > Not always, but often. > > > > > > > There is one pending iwlwifi-fixes, dunno if it will fix your issue. > > [1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/iwlwifi/iwlwifi- > > fixes.git;a=commitdiff;h=c3e5d7181afb66657393066bccce0956fab09ab3 > > Right - so the 2 patches are unrelated, and the one Sedat is pointing at is relevant for 3.8 only. It fixes a bug that has been introduced in 3.8. Yes, I have now given that one a try, but it does not affect my issue. > Regarding the issue Hugh is suffering from, I have to say that I am a little confused since I am pretty sure the patch is right. Now, it might uncover other pre-existing bugs. All I can say is that I don't think that reverting the patch is *so* problematic since the patch really wants to solve a rare case. If it causes issues, we can simply revert it. It only means that when I will get a little bit of time, I might need to ask you a few logs. Thanks for the report (and the bisection). Sure, let me know what to do, once you have time to investigate. So far as I know, I'm the first to notice: so we can probably leave it in 3.8-rc for now, until/unless it gives wider trouble. But reverting from 3.7-stable soon would be a good idea, regressions there being more tiresome. Hugh