Yes I think it would be more interesting to test this on the 3.0.13 (or so) that others are using already, we just recently had some bugfixes in 3.2-rc that wouldn't have propagated up yet.
The interesting thing would be having 3.0.x broken, fixed with 11n_disable=1 and then figuring out if it's also fixed with 11n_disable=2, 4 or 6.
Yes I think it would be more interesting to test this on the 3.0.13 (or so) that others are using already, we just recently had some bugfixes in 3.2-rc that wouldn't have propagated up yet.
The interesting thing would be having 3.0.x broken, fixed with 11n_disable=1 and then figuring out if it's also fixed with 11n_disable=2, 4 or 6.