Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#25436 - [netcfg] 2.6.6-1 wireless bridge set down due to nocarrier
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Jeremy Blawn (jblawn) - Sunday, 07 August 2011, 18:38 GMT
Last edited by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Monday, 08 August 2011, 10:26 GMT
Opened by Jeremy Blawn (jblawn) - Sunday, 07 August 2011, 18:38 GMT
Last edited by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Monday, 08 August 2011, 10:26 GMT
|
DetailsUpon start-up netcfg attempts to bring a bridge interface up for hostapd to use as an Access Point. However, part of the netcfg scripts is detecting whether there is a signal and this causes the bridge interface to be set down on failure. This was working in prior versions to 2.6.6. It may also be a kernel update where no-carrier is being returned.
/etc/network.d/bridge: INTERFACE="br0" CONNECTION="bridge" DESCRIPTION="Bridge for wireless" IP="static" ADDR="192.168.1.1" NETMASK="255.255.255.0" script code that is causing the interface to be set down /usr/lib/network/connections/ethernet: if ! checkyesno "${SKIPNOCARRIER:-no}" && ip link show dev "$INTERFACE" | fgrep -q "NO-CARRIER"; then sleep ${CARRIER_TIMEOUT:-2} # Some cards are plain slow to come up. Don't fail immediately. # if ip link show dev "$INTERFACE" | fgrep -q "NO-CARRIER"; then # report_iproute "No connection" # fi fi I have commented out the test to keep the interface from being brought down on boot. Maybe there needs to be a flag that an empty bridge interface is legitimate and will not have a carrier immediately (ie skip the test)? |
This task depends upon
Comment by Rémy Oudompheng (remyoudompheng) -
Sunday, 07 August 2011, 18:44 GMT
The problem should be fixed by the option SKIPNOCARRIER=yes. The test you commented out exactly takes this option into account