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

Bug#622971: [marcos.carot@gmail.com: Re: ath9k: Ath9K wireless quite unreliable since upgrade to 2.6.38]



Forwarding with permission.
--- Begin Message ---
On Jueves 16 Febrero 2012 08:11:14 usted escribió:
> Hi Marcos,
> 
> Marcos Raul Carot Collins wrote:
> > Sorry to report, but after several weeks of usage, it still happens, in
> > the two systems where I have this wireless card.
> 
> What is the newest unaffected version you know of?
> 
> If you can reproduce this with 3.2.y or newer, please report it
> upstream to ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, cc-ing
> linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org and either me or this bug log so we can
> track it.
> 
> Be sure to mention:
> 
>  - steps to reproduce the problem, assuming one has the same hardware
>  - expected result, actual result, and how the difference indicates a
>    bug
>  - which kernel versions you have tested and what happened with each
>  - full "dmesg" output from an affected kernel, as an attachment
>  - what kind of tests you would be able to perform (e.g., if someone
>    provides debugging patches, would you be willing to test them?)
>  - any other weird observations or workarounds
>  - a link to this bug log for the full story
> 
> If it doesn't reproduce the problem, that would be interesting too,
> but no need to bother upstream in that case. :)
> 
> Thanks and hope that helps,
> Jonathan


Thanks Jonathan,

Sadly I do not remember the version of the kernel that worked fine for the last 
time. I do remember that it was 2-3 months after this started happening that I 
reported the bug. I have been always using testing and I update it 2-3 times a 
week.

All the kernels since then that have been in testing have had the issue. I see 
that 3.2 has now been migrated to testing. I'll test when I come back from 
work.

I appreciate very much your work! Thanks again!

Cheers,

Marcos
https://plus.google.com/u/0/110423266679141614542
https://www.facebook.com/marcoscc

--- End Message ---

Reply to: