Sure, but I only see one place in ath5k_rxbuf_setup where it returns an error value (-ENOMEM). I'm using a 5/18/2010 snapshot. Should I grab a later version?
Are there any cache issues when dealing with hardware devices like the Atheros chip? For instance, ath5k_rxbuf_setup sets up descriptors and links. Is it certain the hardware has the same view of memory? bob =================== On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Bob Copeland <m...@bobcopeland.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Robert Brown <robert.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I transferred 1 Gb of data twice while executing the scan command as > above. > > I got 3 corrupted blocks on the first transfer and 2 on the second, which > is > > more than I normally expect. Usually, I have to transfer 2 or 3 Gb > before I > > see one bad block. Not conclusive, but it supports your hunch. > > The length of each bad run was 1445 bytes. > > What about this -- can you annotate ath5k_rxbuf_setup in the two > places it returns error codes to see if those are ever hit? > > I wonder if the issue is similar to what Benoit said: we somehow > get a "done" descriptor at the head of the buffer list. We always > move the done item to the end before we try resetting the descriptor > which seems a bit backwards. > > -- > Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com >
_______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
