Return-path: Received: from emh07.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.117]:58569 "EHLO emh07.mail.saunalahti.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751064AbaAQJBt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:01:49 -0500 Message-ID: <1389949304.8062.55.camel@porter.coelho.fi> (sfid-20140117_100153_484936_2E0FB94B) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] b43: fix the wrong assignment of status.freq in b43_rx() From: Luca Coelho To: Jonas Gorski Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , ZHAO Gang , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , b43-dev , Stefano Brivio Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:01:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1389939896.8062.53.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 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). -- Luca.