Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]:63206 "EHLO mail-bk0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756862Ab3A3T6T (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:58:19 -0500 Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id jm19so1020855bkc.30 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:58:17 -0800 (PST) From: Christian Lamparter To: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:58:13 +0100 Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <20130128100857.GC2316@redhat.com> <20130130190703.GB2167@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20130130190703.GB2167@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <201301302058.13586.chunkeey@googlemail.com> (sfid-20130130_205823_528944_F005650E) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Best Regards, Christian