Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:50538 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755457Ab3A3TPY (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:15:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:07:04 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: Christian Lamparter , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status Message-ID: <20130130190703.GB2167@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20130130_201528_596568_169359E5) References: <20130128100857.GC2316@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130128100857.GC2316@redhat.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status". > > (12bf6f45d1703858) > > > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and > > only a single PHY information packet for all the > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap. > > > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter > > ACK OK, I'm confused...this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status". But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" that seems to be different. What a I missing? Is this the right patch to merge? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.