Return-path: Received: from emh01.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.107]:35269 "EHLO emh01.mail.saunalahti.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751051AbaAQJxl (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:53:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1389952418.8062.57.camel@porter.coelho.fi> (sfid-20140117_105348_064707_FF6DE8F6) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] b43: fix the wrong assignment of status.freq in b43_rx() From: Luca Coelho To: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= Cc: ZHAO Gang , Jonas Gorski , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , b43-dev , Stefano Brivio Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:53:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1389939896.8062.53.camel@porter.coelho.fi> <1389949304.8062.55.camel@porter.coelho.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 10:37 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > 2014/1/17 ZHAO Gang : > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Luca Coelho wrote: > >> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 09:56 +0100, Jonas Gorski wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >>> > 2014/1/17 Luca Coelho : > >>> >> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 13:27 +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote: > >>> >>> In following patch, replace b43 specific helper function with kernel > >>> >>> api to reduce code duplication. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Signed-off-by: ZHAO Gang > >>> >>> --- > >>> >>> drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c | 4 ++-- > >>> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> >>> > >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c > >>> >>> index 4ae63f4..50e5ddb 100644 > >>> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c > >>> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c > >>> >>> @@ -821,10 +821,10 @@ void b43_rx(struct b43_wldev *dev, struct sk_buff *skb, const void *_rxhdr) > >>> >>> * channel number in b43. */ > >>> >>> if (chanstat & B43_RX_CHAN_5GHZ) { > >>> >>> status.band = IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ; > >>> >>> - status.freq = b43_freq_to_channel_5ghz(chanid); > >>> >>> + status.freq = b43_channel_to_freq_5ghz(chanid); > >>> >>> } else { > >>> >>> status.band = IEEE80211_BAND_2GHZ; > >>> >>> - status.freq = b43_freq_to_channel_2ghz(chanid); > >>> >>> + status.freq = b43_channel_to_freq_2ghz(chanid); > >>> >>> } > >>> >>> break; > >>> >>> default: > >>> >> > >>> >> Why do you need this patch if you're going to remove these calls in the > >>> >> next patch anyway? > >>> > > >>> > I was thinking about this for a moment too. You could just make a one > >>> > patch and note in commit message that "translation" was reversed. > >>> > >>> That would mean mixing fixes and improvements, which is something you > >>> are not supposed to do, so IMHO having these split into two is > >>> correct. Think about stable maintainers wanting the fix but not the > >>> other change because it might introduce unknown side effects. > >> > >> Makes sense. In such case, the first patch should be clearly marked as > >> a bug fix, so at least the commit message should be changed (ie. > >> mentioning the next patch in the series is useless). > >> > > > > I am OK to send this fix either in one patch or two, actually I have > > sent a version 2 which is a one patch version :-) > > > > I'm not sure if this patch is needed for stable, yes, as you said, if > > it's for stable, the commit message should be changed. > > Thanks for your help guys. > > I think it may be the best idea to send > 1/2 as fix (probably 3.14) + stable CC > 2/2 as improvement (for next) > Does it make sense? Sounds good to me. The actual fix is so simple and obvious that I don't see any reason for not sending it as a fix + stable. -- Luca.