Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:6101 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758876AbYCYSaM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:30:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [PATCH][RESEND] wireless: convert !X & Y to !(X & Y) iniwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed() Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:26:28 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20080325_183019_464371_A596F945) In-Reply-To: <20080325174227.GB3026@tuxdriver.com> References: <47E9226C.7090403@tiscali.nl> <20080325174227.GB3026@tuxdriver.com> From: "Chatre, Reinette" To: "John W. Linville" Cc: "Roel Kluin" <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, "Zhu, Yi" , , "lkml" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:42 AM, John W. Linville wrote: > 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? I see. The patch is small and I thus assume a merge conflict will be easy to resolve. Yet ... I do not know what is really involved in the upstream code movements, while I know that you do. If you say it is better to wait until stable then I am ok with it. Thanks Reinette