From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 22 21:13:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEB48A07; Thu, 22 May 2014 21:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ignoranthack.me (ignoranthack.me [199.102.79.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEBD72C5B; Thu, 22 May 2014 21:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.12.72.220] (unknown [69.164.56.1]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: sbruno@ignoranthack.me) by mail.ignoranthack.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 030E5194138; Thu, 22 May 2014 21:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: thread jack, wpi(4) fatal firmware error From: Sean Bruno Reply-To: sbruno@freebsd.org To: Edward Tomasz =?iso-8859-2?Q?Napiera=B3a?= In-Reply-To: <3am0iq7vn2l3np23f77vm5hm.1400781279549@email.android.com> References: <3am0iq7vn2l3np23f77vm5hm.1400781279549@email.android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 14:13:55 -0700 Message-ID: <1400793235.1069.7.camel@bruno> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 21:13:57 -0000 On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 10:54 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > Restarting the interface manually works. > > > so, interesting. iwi(4) seems to do the same thing. I'm not sure > > what's up, but I've been trying to pin it down. > > It seems to already have the required code, iwi_restart(). Doesn't > it work? > Oh, well that explains the confusion, this is wpi(4) not iwi(4) ... sean