quoted
Okay, so i was 0, so running UP probably isn't going to help. r7 is
also spec_priv->rfs_chan_spec_scan.
So, I think the question is... how is this NULL - and has it always
been NULL...
The problem appears to be that ath_cmn_process_fft() isn't called that
often. When it is, it crashes in ath_cmn_is_fft_buf_full() because
spec_priv->rfs_chan_spec_scan is NULL when ATH9K_DEBUGFS=n. :-(
I'm running with ATH9K_DEBUGFS=y now. If it goes a couple of days
without crashing, I'll gin up a patch.
A similar patch was applied to ath-next branch:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9431163/.
--
Miaoqing
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:06:57PM +0800, miaoqing at codeaurora.org wrote:
quoted
quoted
Okay, so i was 0, so running UP probably isn't going to help. r7 is
also spec_priv->rfs_chan_spec_scan.
So, I think the question is... how is this NULL - and has it always
been NULL...
The problem appears to be that ath_cmn_process_fft() isn't called that
often. When it is, it crashes in ath_cmn_is_fft_buf_full() because
spec_priv->rfs_chan_spec_scan is NULL when ATH9K_DEBUGFS=n. :-(
I'm running with ATH9K_DEBUGFS=y now. If it goes a couple of days
without crashing, I'll gin up a patch.
A similar patch was applied to ath-next branch:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9431163/.
Hmm. Ok, I'm giving it a spin on my board with SMP=y, ATH9K_DEBUGFS=n
(so the only change from known crashing is the patch) and we'll see how
it goes.
Honestly, though, I think the real problem is when kernels are built
without ATH9K_DEBUGFS. Did the reporter of the crash say if that was
enabled on his system or not?
I'm concerned that there may be other code lurking that secretly depends
on ATH9K_DEBUGFS being enabled.
thx,
Jason.