[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#631289: closed by Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#631289: iwlagn: Kernel 2.6.39-2-amd64 in Debian Testing causes Lenovo X201 and T500 wifi to crash Netgear DGN3500 ADSL router/Wifi access point)



Ben,

> A friend has suggested the problem lies in allowing 802.11n and that I
> should retry using only 802.11g which I shall do to gain more data and
> report back so that there is a record in case someone actually is
> interested in fixing this "new feature" (as apparently it is not a
> bug :-) in Debian's 2.6.39 kernel. 

I finally managed to set aside some time to do the few initial "black
box" investigations.

I tried varying the WiFi connection speed on the ADSL router and the
kernel version.  I also tried Ubuntu Natty as well as Debian Testing,
both the 2.6.38 kernel and 2.6.39 kernel -- Natty only has a 2.6.38
kernel as far as I can tell.

The 2.6.38 kernel works fine with the router at "upto 270", "upto 130" ,
and "g only".

The 2.6.39 kernel fails to work on higher loads at "upto 270" and "upto
130", but works fine at "g only".

The deduction from this is that something has changed in the 802.11n
aspects of the 2.6.39 kernel that either:

-- has diverged from the standard as implemented in the router.

-- has corrected a divergence from the standard, that is incompatible
with the router.

I am sure there are other possibilities, but these seem the most
obvious.

I will put this anecdotal data onto the Netgear forums, to see if anyone
at Netgear cares.  Hopefully the folk upstream in Linux land (especially
iwlagn land) already do.

Thanks.
   

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: