Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:51169 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752703Ab3A3UPX (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:15:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:13:43 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Christian Lamparter Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status Message-ID: <20130130201343.GH2167@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20130130_211527_586964_A7A116D7) References: <20130128100857.GC2316@redhat.com> <20130130190703.GB2167@tuxdriver.com> <201301302058.13586.chunkeey@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <201301302058.13586.chunkeey@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:58:13PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 08:07:04 PM John W. Linville wrote: > > 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... > Ah yes, maybe I can explain it. > > > 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? > Nothing I hope. > > The patch "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" might have > the date 2013-01-18, but it was sent on the 26th... A week after > the RFC. > > Note: The RFC is just both patches ("report A-MPDU status" and > "iwlegacy: fix antenna mask") merged into one. I did that because > I wanted to point out the issue of the *shared* bit (antenna mask > vs ampdu indicator). And thankfully, Johannes explained that... > "the definition in question has always been the same for all > hardware. I just didn't fix it for 4965 since it was split off > to iwlegacy already." > > Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time, > that's why it has a newer date. > > > Is this the right patch to merge? > Yes. Cool, thanks for the explanation! -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.