Comment 5 for bug 261098

Hi Guys,

@radi2k - If you do not want to test via a LiveCD you'd need to enable the Intrepid repository in order to install the 2.6.27 kernel.

@Markus - Thanks for testing and the update. I'm assuming with Hardy you had linux-ubuntu-modules installed? The reason I ask is that I'm only able to find this message existing in the hardy-lum git tree:

ogasawara@yoji:~/ubuntu-hardy-lum$ grep -rn "DoRxHighPower" *

ubuntu/wireless/rtl8187-usb/rtl8187/r8180_dm.c:344: printk("DoRxHighPower(): RF_ZEBRA, Upper Threshold: %d LOWER Threshold: %d\n",

Here's a link to the actual file:

http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/ubuntu-hardy-lum.git;a=blob;f=ubuntu/wireless/rtl8187-usb/rtl8187/r8180_dm.c;h=994493732de899c01f25cfca258151bb058f81ec;hb=HEAD

Looking at the code it just looks like a random printk was inadvertantly left in the code. You'll notice it looks like the majority of the other printk's were indeed commented out. I assume you saw no other issues with this driver - ie wifi is working for you otherwise?

Beginning with Intrepid however, linux-ubuntu-modules was merged with the linux kernel source. I quickly searched the intrepid kernel git tree but was unable to find this same message:

ogasawara@yoji:~/ubuntu-intrepid$ grep -rn "DoRxHighPower" *

ogasawara@yoji:~/ubuntu-intrepid$

Then searching for r8180_dm.c indeed shows the file no longer exists in Intrepid:

ogasawara@yoji:~/ubuntu-intrepid$ find -name "r8180_dm.c"
ogasawara@yoji:~/ubuntu-intrepid$

So it makes sense that the message is gone now when you've tested 2.6.27.

Regarding the new messages you are seeing, based on the above information I'd say they are unrelated to this specific bug and likely looks to be an issue with NetworkManager. Alexander did put out a call for testing NetworkManager 0.7 https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2008-August/000467.html so you may want to seach some of the newer Network Manager bug reports to see if this may already be reported.

Regarding this specific bug against Hardy let me know if you'd like me to try to get this pushed through the SRU process. It seems like it would be a simple one line fix of commenting out the offending printk. Thanks.