On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 01:16:54PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Florian Engelhardt <f...@dotbox.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:01:08 -0800, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Bob Copeland <m...@bobcopeland.com> > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Ok, fair enough. We should try to figure out where the 0x5d and 0x43 > >>> come from. It could be memory corruption, for example, but 0x5d and > >>> 0x43 aren't poison values. You may try turning on slub/slab debugging > >>> just to be sure. > >> > >> He noted he sees this with iwl drivers though., Florian, please > >> correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > You are right. Any news on this? > > > > i attached a new scan from the Laptop with intel chipset (iwlagn module). > > The first Cell ist the correct access point the second cell with the same > > ESSID doesn't exist. I don't know why iwlist scan finds this AP. > > Please consider burrying iwlist and iwconfig under some ditch and use iw.
Someone suggested reimplementing iwlist, iwconfig, etc as scripts around iw -- any takers? :-) John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linvi...@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
