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

Bug#659519: [ank@spamfence.net: Re: [3.1.8 -> 3.2.4 regression] ATH9K driver will not connect to my adhoc network]



Forwarding to the bug log.
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,

as this is my first bug report ever I'm not sure if I understand.

Am I supposed to send all I sent to you previously to the addresses
given in this mail? So the dmesg log and my setup? Can't you do it
instead? I don't want to make a mistake.

I also might later (cannot guarantee though) be able to apply the
patch you provided. But I didn't apply pages since quite some time and
have not much time. If you are interested that I try this can you
please provide me with all console commands how I do this?

With kind regards, Ankman

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 19:27, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ankman wrote:
>
>> This (attachment "report.txt") will be from my currently booted kernel
>> (3.1.0-1-686-pae)
>
> Thanks!  That's fine.  Forwarded to the bug log.
>
> [...]
>> I solely rely on a script I wrote (key and essid were replaced by me),
>> no network manager involved:
>>
>> ifconfig wlan0 down
>> iwconfig wlan0 mode ad-hoc
>> iwconfig wlan0 my-essid
>> iwconfig wlan0 key 12345
>> ifconfig wlan0 192.168.198.251
>> route add default gw 192.168.198.78
>>
>> Above works reliable for me since months. Until yesterday when the
>> kernel-update was installed
>
> Ok, please send a summary of this problem upstream (that's
> ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, cc-ing linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, and either me or this bug log so we can
> track it).
>
> Be sure to mention the steps to reproduce, expected result, actual
> result, and versions tested, and what kind of testing you would and
> would not be able to do to track this down, just as you have here, and
> include a link to this bug log for the full story.
>
>>> If you have time to test the attached patch[2], that might also be
>>> useful.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't have much time for that.
>
> That's fine.  If we're lucky, someone more familiar with these things
> upstream can come up with some way to confirm or rule out that cause
> without having to build a new kernel.
>
> Thanks for the quick feedback.
> Jonathan

--- End Message ---

Reply to: