Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.19.149.2]:41649 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751396Ab0LCEoS (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:44:18 -0500 Received: from mail.atheros.com ([10.10.20.108]) by sidewinder.atheros.com for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:44:03 -0800 Message-ID: <4CF87597.5080900@atheros.com> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:14:07 +0530 From: Mohammed Shafi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John W. Linville" CC: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: Properly use unlikely check macro References: <1291044477-2317-1-git-send-email-mshajakhan@atheros.com> <20101202202127.GF2358@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20101202202127.GF2358@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 03 December 2010 01:51 AM, John W. Linville wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:57:57PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote: > >> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan >> >> AUTOSLEEP feature is enabled only AR9003 and later chips.So unlikely >> macro should be used only to check whether auto-sleep feature is enabled >> >> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c | 6 +++--- >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c >> index 262c815..751ee1b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c >> @@ -1743,10 +1743,10 @@ int ath_rx_tasklet(struct ath_softc *sc, int flush, bool hp) >> } >> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&sc->sc_pm_lock, flags); >> - if (unlikely(ath9k_check_auto_sleep(sc) || >> - (sc->ps_flags& (PS_WAIT_FOR_BEACON | >> + if ((sc->ps_flags& (PS_WAIT_FOR_BEACON | >> PS_WAIT_FOR_CAB | >> - PS_WAIT_FOR_PSPOLL_DATA)))) >> + PS_WAIT_FOR_PSPOLL_DATA)) || >> + unlikely(ath9k_hw_check_auto_sleep(sc))) >> ath_rx_ps(sc, skb); >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sc->sc_pm_lock, flags); >> > What tree is this against? > 2.6.37-rc4 ..Any problems in applying.Do I have to resend it based on the latest pull ? thanks, shafi