Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:30 PM, maximilian attems m...@stro.at wrote: please as already told several times report upstream on bugzilla.kernel.org so that the guys working on it can fix it. let us know the bug number. I have done this now (upstream bug 13199, this bug should be marked forwarded as soon as control@ notices). Your tone of voice is perfectly tuned to trigger a I refuse to do any such thing until you stop nagging me about it reaction from me, and is likely to cause users who are less accustomed to hostile maintainer responses to give up on reporting bugs entirely. zw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:14:46PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff j...@inutil.org wrote: I don't have the slightest idea how to report a bug to the kernel upstream. It's a standard Bugzilla installation: http://bugzilla.kernel.org Do they mind receiving bug reports for distribution-modified kernels? (i.e. do I need to reproduce the problem with an unmodified upstream kernel first?) The Debian kernel doesn't have excessive backports, so that's mostly ok if you mention it explicitely. While this works well for application software bugs, kernel bugs tend to require hardware-specific test/feedback requests from the relevant subsystem maintainer. All the Debian maintainers could do is to forward mails around and inducing needless overhead and delay. Ok, fair enough. Clearer documentation *would* be appreciated (including within reportbug) but I apologize for my earlier crankiness. Could you please file an enhancement bug against reportbug? Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
This is just to say that after an interval of working well, my ath5k is now completely nonfunctional in both 2.6.28 and 2.6.29. (I'm going to try backing all the way down to 2.6.27 next.) Cold boot doesn't help. Rebooting into Windows doesn't help (it used to). This isn't a hardware failure, because the wireless *does* work when Windows is the active operating system -- but the adapter seems permanently stuck in noise floor calibration timeout land with the Linux drivers. zw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff j...@inutil.org wrote: I don't have the slightest idea how to report a bug to the kernel upstream. It's a standard Bugzilla installation: http://bugzilla.kernel.org Do they mind receiving bug reports for distribution-modified kernels? (i.e. do I need to reproduce the problem with an unmodified upstream kernel first?) While this works well for application software bugs, kernel bugs tend to require hardware-specific test/feedback requests from the relevant subsystem maintainer. All the Debian maintainers could do is to forward mails around and inducing needless overhead and delay. Ok, fair enough. Clearer documentation *would* be appreciated (including within reportbug) but I apologize for my earlier crankiness. Since the ath5k problem seems to have come back with a vengeance, I will see about taking it to upstream, but not until next week - I'm at a conference right now. zw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:57:09PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: This is just to say that after an interval of working well, my ath5k is now completely nonfunctional in both 2.6.28 and 2.6.29. (I'm going to try backing all the way down to 2.6.27 next.) Cold boot doesn't help. Rebooting into Windows doesn't help (it used to). This isn't a hardware failure, because the wireless *does* work when Windows is the active operating system -- but the adapter seems permanently stuck in noise floor calibration timeout land with the Linux drivers. zw please as already told several times report upstream on bugzilla.kernel.org so that the guys working on it can fix it. let us know the bug number. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Zack Weinberg wrote: [..snipp..] so can we please have an update on 2.6.29-2, that would be really great for more information on the debian kernel, read - http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel - http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelReportingBugs kind regards -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:40 AM, maximilian attems m...@stro.at wrote: On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Zack Weinberg wrote: [..snipp..] so can we please have an update on 2.6.29-2, that would be really great It is still too early to say whether the problem has gone away. zw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.kernel, you wrote: On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, maximilian attems m...@stro.at wrote: I have to say I really don't appreciate the style of bug management where I file a bug, there is no response for months on end, and then I get a request to try a newer version. It gives the impression that you're not actually doing anything about the bugs. ath5k was quite young on 2.6.26 so it was somehow expected to fail there. I would have appreciated being told that within a few days of reporting the bug; it would have been useful information then. also you didn't seem to provide any updates I provided all the information I had in the initial bug report. I would have responded to requests for further information if asked, but no one asked. nor did you go upstream. I don't have the slightest idea how to report a bug to the kernel upstream. It's a standard Bugzilla installation: http://bugzilla.kernel.org Isn't forwarding bugs to upstream part of a Debian maintainer's responsibilities? While this works well for application software bugs, kernel bugs tend to require hardware-specific test/feedback requests from the relevant subsystem maintainer. All the Debian maintainers could do is to forward mails around and inducing needless overhead and delay. Also there's a resource shortage of kernel maintainers. But you do have a point, there needs to be better documentation and reportbug should have some tweaks and better user guidance for kernel bug reports. I'll file some enhancement bugs soon. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, maximilian attems m...@stro.at wrote: I have to say I really don't appreciate the style of bug management where I file a bug, there is no response for months on end, and then I get a request to try a newer version. It gives the impression that you're not actually doing anything about the bugs. ath5k was quite young on 2.6.26 so it was somehow expected to fail there. I would have appreciated being told that within a few days of reporting the bug; it would have been useful information then. also you didn't seem to provide any updates I provided all the information I had in the initial bug report. I would have responded to requests for further information if asked, but no one asked. nor did you go upstream. I don't have the slightest idea how to report a bug to the kernel upstream. Isn't forwarding bugs to upstream part of a Debian maintainer's responsibilities? zw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Zack Weinberg wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:08 AM, maximilian attems m...@stro.at wrote: could you please retry with a recent kernel aka 2.6.29? I have seen the bug with both .27 and .28, but only intermittently, and not at all since I switched from network-manager to wicd. I have now installed 2.6.29 on the machine, but it'll be some time before I can be sure it's not happening, assuming the bug is fixed. ok cool, thanks for letting us know. as 2.6.29 had quite some suspend path fixes. thanks for feedback I have to say I really don't appreciate the style of bug management where I file a bug, there is no response for months on end, and then I get a request to try a newer version. It gives the impression that you're not actually doing anything about the bugs. ath5k was quite young on 2.6.26 so it was somehow expected to fail there. also you didn't seem to provide any updates nor did you go upstream. it's not that we have too many guys working on those bugs, so be happy at all to get asked. kind regards. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
could you please retry with a recent kernel aka 2.6.29? thanks for feedback -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#503544: ath5k: after suspend to RAM, requires cold boot to work again
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:08 AM, maximilian attems m...@stro.at wrote: could you please retry with a recent kernel aka 2.6.29? I have seen the bug with both .27 and .28, but only intermittently, and not at all since I switched from network-manager to wicd. I have now installed 2.6.29 on the machine, but it'll be some time before I can be sure it's not happening, assuming the bug is fixed. thanks for feedback I have to say I really don't appreciate the style of bug management where I file a bug, there is no response for months on end, and then I get a request to try a newer version. It gives the impression that you're not actually doing anything about the bugs. zw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
