Hi Chris,

chris+debian@chiappa.net wrote:

> The
> ath5k driver apparently uses lots of cpu and causes long pauses in
> connectivity when the wireless networks available are being
> scanned...since network manager does this a lot, it leads to
> persistent and annoying networking hangs, particularly noticable in
> interactive sessions (ie, ssh).

Upstream, John W. Linville wrote:

> I think this situation has been vastly improved between the original report and
> 2.6.35. I'm going to close this now -- please reopen if you truly believe a
> serious issue remains.

What kernel are you using these days? Can you confirm the result John
mentioned? Do you think it would be worth pursuing a fix for this in
squeeze, and if so, would you be able to test patches if we provide
them?

Thanks for a pleasant report,
Jonathan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120328182458.GA9435@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120328182458.GA9435@burratino

Hi Jonathan, sorry about the slow reply. The situation is definitely
better, and my recollection (it's been a while) is that it did improve
around the 2.6.35 timeframe. I've only ever run unstable so I'm not
sure how much testing I can provide, but if a kernel deb was
installable in unstable I would be happy to give it a shot.

My impression is that the card is still kind of "iffy" for interactive
use - it seems to stutter a lot and that may be related to the network
scanning, but it's good enough that I haven't bothered to pursue
anything further.

Thanks!

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:24:58PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> chris+debian@chiappa.net wrote:
>
> > The
> > ath5k driver apparently uses lots of cpu and causes long pauses in
> > connectivity when the wireless networks available are being
> > scanned...since network manager does this a lot, it leads to
> > persistent and annoying networking hangs, particularly noticable in
> > interactive sessions (ie, ssh).
>
> Upstream, John W. Linville wrote:
>
> > I think this situation has been vastly improved between the original report and
> > 2.6.35. I'm going to close this now -- please reopen if you truly believe a
> > serious issue remains.
>
> What kernel are you using these days? Can you confirm the result John
> mentioned? Do you think it would be worth pursuing a fix for this in
> squeeze, and if so, would you be able to test patches if we provide
> them?
>
> Thanks for a pleasant report,
> Jonathan
>

--

..ooOO chris@chiappa.net | My opinions are my own OOoo..
..ooOO chris.chiappa@oracle.com | and certainly not those OOoo..
..ooOO http://www.chiappa.net/~chris/ | of my employer OOoo..



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120402170457.GA17141@snurgle.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120402170457.GA17141@snurgle.org

Forgot to say, although I don't think it's directly pertinent - I
think I'm currently running a 3.2.something kernel on the laptop in
question (an official Debian kernel)

--

..ooOO chris@chiappa.net | My opinions are my own OOoo..
..ooOO chris.chiappa@oracle.com | and certainly not those OOoo..
..ooOO http://www.chiappa.net/~chris/ | of my employer OOoo..



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120402171033.GB17141@snurgle.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120402171033.GB17141@snurgle.org

Chris Chiappa wrote:

> Hi Jonathan, sorry about the slow reply. The situation is definitely
> better, and my recollection (it's been a while) is that it did improve
> around the 2.6.35 timeframe. I've only ever run unstable so I'm not
> sure how much testing I can provide, but if a kernel deb was
> installable in unstable I would be happy to give it a shot.

Good to hear. If you can come up with more details about the
remaining iffyness or a reliable way to test for it, please feel free
to file a new bug.

Returning to this bug (long pauses during a network scan): the squeeze
kernel should install without trouble on sid if you'd like to give it
a try.

Thanks,
Jonathan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120402191521.GI3365@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120402191521.GI3365@burratino

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:15:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Good to hear. If you can come up with more details about the
> remaining iffyness or a reliable way to test for it, please feel free
> to file a new bug.
>
> Returning to this bug (long pauses during a network scan): the squeeze
> kernel should install without trouble on sid if you'd like to give it
> a try.
Sorry for being dense, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what
the current kernel in squeeze is. Can you point me to a .deb or a
version number I can go scrounge around for in ftp?

--

..ooOO chris@chiappa.net | My opinions are my own OOoo..
..ooOO chris.chiappa@oracle.com | and certainly not those OOoo..
..ooOO http://www.chiappa.net/~chris/ | of my employer OOoo..



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120411215358.GA6944@snurgle.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120411215358.GA6944@snurgle.org

Chris Chiappa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:15:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>> Good to hear. If you can come up with more details about the
>> remaining iffyness or a reliable way to test for it, please feel free
>> to file a new bug.
>>
>> Returning to this bug (long pauses during a network scan): the squeeze
>> kernel should install without trouble on sid if you'd like to give it
>> a try.
>
> Sorry for being dense, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what
> the current kernel in squeeze is. Can you point me to a .deb or a
> version number I can go scrounge around for in ftp?

Here's the easy way:

echo 'http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian stable-proposed-updates main'
>>/etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get update
apt-get install linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64
vi /etc/apt/sources.list; # remove the new stable-proposed-updates entry

If you prefer an ftp site, [1] should do it. (The APT way is preferred
because it checks checksums. ftp.us.debian.org is a round-robin alias
for several mirrors not directly controlled by Debian.)

Thanks,
Jonathan

[1] ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64_2.6.32-43_amd64.deb



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120411221203.GJ4248@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120411221203.GJ4248@burratino

Hi,

Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Chris Chiappa wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:15:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>>> Returning to this bug (long pauses during a network scan): the squeeze
>>> kernel should install without trouble on sid if you'd like to give it
>>> a try.
>>
>> Sorry for being dense, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what
>> the current kernel in squeeze is. Can you point me to a .deb or a
>> version number I can go scrounge around for in ftp?
[...]
> echo 'http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian stable-proposed-updates main'
> >>/etc/apt/sources.list
> apt-get update
> apt-get install linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64
> vi /etc/apt/sources.list; # remove the new stable-proposed-updates entry
>
> If you prefer an ftp site, [1] should do it. (The APT way is preferred
[...]
> [1] ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64_2.6.32-43_amd64.deb

So now I'm in suspense. Did you get a chance to try this?

Curious,
Jonathan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120714162210.GA22363@burratino