Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751722AbdFHIbL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:31:11 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:56923 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751470AbdFHIbJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:31:09 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,314,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="978246232" From: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" To: Seraphime Kirkovski CC: "luca@coelho.fi" , "Berg, Johannes" , "Coelho, Luciano" , linuxwifi , Kalle Valo , "open list:INTEL WIRELESS WIFI LINK (iwlwifi)" , "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" , open list Subject: RE: [linuxwifi] [PATCH] net: wireless: intel: iwlwifi: dvm: fix tid mask Thread-Topic: [linuxwifi] [PATCH] net: wireless: intel: iwlwifi: dvm: fix tid mask Thread-Index: AQHS395M1Z1I2mCv/kipll1NAceYiKIagERQ///lVgCAAD2McA== Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB3E55212B0@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20170607223354.22399-1-kirkseraph@gmail.com> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB3E5520A41@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170608074954.qihkavvqdtwn4zmp@macchiaveli> In-Reply-To: <20170608074954.qihkavvqdtwn4zmp@macchiaveli> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 10.0.102.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.12.126.117] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1313 Lines: 33 > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:31:01AM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > True, OTOH we need tid to be 8 sometimes. We *just* need to make sure > > that we don't index tid_data with this. Hence I think the proper fix is: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c > > b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c > > index 06ac3f1..16a8646 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c > > @@ -1190,11 +1190,11 @@ void iwlagn_rx_reply_tx(struct iwl_priv *priv, > struct iwl_rx_cmd_buffer *rxb) > > next_reclaimed; > > IWL_DEBUG_TX_REPLY(priv, "Next reclaimed packet:%d\n", > > next_reclaimed); > > + iwlagn_check_ratid_empty(priv, sta_id, tid); > > } > > > > iwl_trans_reclaim(priv->trans, txq_id, ssn, &skbs); > > > > - iwlagn_check_ratid_empty(priv, sta_id, tid); > > freed = 0; > > > > /* process frames */ > > I can confirm it works. You can add my Tested-By. Patch in review in our internal tree. It'll be upstreamed through the regular process. Thanks for your report and debug work.