hello

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:28:55AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 17:00 +0000 schrieb Luís Picciochi Oliveira:
> >
> > However, I have been using linux kernel 2.6.33-rc1 because this card
> > is now supported and works well on it. So, I don't need ndiswrapper
> > anymore.

please be specific which commits (sha1sums) are needed, the more info you give
us the quicker we can backport those or feed upstream stable.

thanks for giving feedback.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100217104302.GA12102@baikonur.stro.at">http://lists.debian.org/20100217104302.GA12102@baikonur.stro.at

Hello,

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM, maximilian attems <max@stro.at> wrote:
>
> please be specific which commits (sha1sums) are needed, the more info you give
> us the quicker we can backport those or feed upstream stable.
>
> thanks for giving feedback.
>

The relevant patches were the ones resulting from bug #12794 at the
kernel.org buzilla [1]. This resulted in three commits to the mainline
kernel: [2,3,4].

Regards,
Pitxyoki

[1] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12794
[2] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=634a555ce3ee5ea1fdcaee8b4ac9ce7 b54f301ac
[3] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c1f8ca1d837148bf061d6ffa2038366 e3cf0e4d7
[4] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=77593ae28c4c134eaf28ef34ecac3cd 4464ecd6e



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 99598f621002170721n40ca9d6ag450d0e6c906ec930@mail. gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/99598f621002170721n40ca9d6ag450d0e6c906ec930@mail. gmail.com

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:21:36PM +0000, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote:
>
> The relevant patches were the ones resulting from bug #12794 at the
> kernel.org buzilla [1]. This resulted in three commits to the mainline
> kernel: [2,3,4].
>
> Regards,
> Pitxyoki
>
> [1] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12794
> [2] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=634a555ce3ee5ea1fdcaee8b4ac9ce7 b54f301ac
> [3] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c1f8ca1d837148bf061d6ffa2038366 e3cf0e4d7
> [4] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=77593ae28c4c134eaf28ef34ecac3cd 4464ecd6e

cool, that was helpful!

sent request to stable@kernel.org as they are small enough to apply
for such. if in the unlikely case they wouldn't get taken, we will
add them to debian linux-2.6. let's first see and wait.

good evening



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100217163158.GN19179@baikonur.stro.at">http://lists.debian.org/20100217163158.GN19179@baikonur.stro.at

As I told you I would, I tested WUSB54GS support on the kernels
shipped by Debian: 2.6.32 (2.6.32-15) from Squeeze and 2.6.34
(2.6.34-1~experimental.2) from sid. Unfortunately, none of them
worked.

I'm attaching the output at syslog with network-manager and with an
/etc/network/interfaces file (and no n-m installed).


Perhaps there's some patch missing that I didn't point out... I'm
sorry but I can't tell what can it be now.


I'm using the vanilla 2.6.33-rc1 kernel again, which works.



Regards,
Pitxyoki

On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 00:55 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote:
> As I told you I would, I tested WUSB54GS support on the kernels
> shipped by Debian: 2.6.32 (2.6.32-15) from Squeeze and 2.6.34
> (2.6.34-1~experimental.2) from sid. Unfortunately, none of them
> worked.
>
> I'm attaching the output at syslog with network-manager and with an
> /etc/network/interfaces file (and no n-m installed).
>
>
> Perhaps there's some patch missing that I didn't point out... I'm
> sorry but I can't tell what can it be now.
>
>
> I'm using the vanilla 2.6.33-rc1 kernel again, which works.

Or possibly this bug fix is bad for that device:

debian/patches/bugfix/all/rndis_host-Poll-status-channel-before-control-channel.patch

Could you try reverting that in either of the Debian kernel packages?

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Possibily you are right.
It seems to be working for 2.6.32. I'll compile 2.6.34 today or
tomorrow without the patch and see if it also works.

Thanks,
Pitxyoki


On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
(...)
>
> Or possibly this bug fix is bad for that device:
>
> debian/patches/bugfix/all/rndis_host-Poll-status-channel-before-control-channel.patch
>
> Could you try reverting that in either of the Debian kernel packages?
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: AANLkTin7ECsp2BCRJx112ugTxtVTSTMIYdWsAZiQdqDk@mail .gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTin7ECsp2BCRJx112ugTxtVTSTMIYdWsAZiQdqDk@mail .gmail.com

It doesn't seem to work on 2.6.34. See attachment.
I had no problems on 2.6.32-5 yet.

Regards,
Pitxyoki

On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 22:31 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote:
> Possibily you are right.
> It seems to be working for 2.6.32. I'll compile 2.6.34 today or
> tomorrow without the patch and see if it also works.

Please do test that as soon as possible. This change is included in
release candidates for 2.6.35 and will need to be reverted there as well
if it caused this regression.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 22:31 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote:
>
> Please do test that as soon as possible. *This change is included in
> release candidates for 2.6.35 and will need to be reverted there as well
> if it caused this regression.

Please see my previous answer on this bug report (I also sent it to
you, you should have received that on your mailbox as well).

I have also compiled the "vanilla" 2.6.34 kernel from kernel.org,
which I'll test tomorrow.
Should I also test the current 2.6.35 rc?

Best regards,
Pitxyoki



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: AANLkTimzLJ9kaQajt89hBuoTrcqGykmR8HYjwSwnhToi@mail .gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTimzLJ9kaQajt89hBuoTrcqGykmR8HYjwSwnhToi@mail .gmail.com

On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 02:09 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 22:31 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote:
> >
> > Please do test that as soon as possible. This change is included in
> > release candidates for 2.6.35 and will need to be reverted there as well
> > if it caused this regression.
>
> Please see my previous answer on this bug report (I also sent it to
> you, you should have received that on your mailbox as well).

Yes, sorry.

> I have also compiled the "vanilla" 2.6.34 kernel from kernel.org,
> which I'll test tomorrow.
> Should I also test the current 2.6.35 rc?

Please can you confirm or correct the following summary of your results
so far:

Debian 2.6.32-15: fails to pass traffic
Debian 2.6.32-15 with patch reverted: good
Debian 2.6.34-1~experimental.2: fails to pass traffic
Debian 2.6.34-1~experimental.2 with patch reverted: driver crashes!

Testing either or both of those additional versions should provide
useful information. Unfortunately it looks like there may be a second
bug here.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.