Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759444AbYCYSH0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757421AbYCYSHI (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:08 -0400 Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:4786 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757775AbYCYSHF (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:42:27 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: "Chatre, Reinette" Cc: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, "Zhu, Yi" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] wireless: convert !X & Y to !(X & Y) in iwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed() Message-ID: <20080325174227.GB3026@tuxdriver.com> References: <47E9226C.7090403@tiscali.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1617 Lines: 44 On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:30:58AM -0700, Chatre, Reinette wrote: > On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:04 AM, Roel Kluin wrote: > > > from include/linux/ieee80211.h:274: > > #define IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH 0x0002 --- > > ! has a higher priority than & > > > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > > b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > > index d727de8..6576757 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > > @@ -4589,7 +4589,7 @@ static u8 > > iwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed(struct iwl4965_priv *priv, > > > > if (sta_ht_inf) { > > if ((!sta_ht_inf->ht_supported) || > > - (!sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH)) > > + (!(sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH))) > return 0; > > } > > This patch has already been acked and merged into wireless-testing, and > afaik already pushed further upstream. Yes, but FWIW the problem exists in the 2.6.25 stream as well. I've been holding-back a patch to fix it there, trying to decide if it is worth creating the merge conflict to fix it there. I'm inclined to think it is better to let things lay as they are and send that patch for the -stable series once 2.6.25 ships. Any thoughts on that? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/