Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com ([209.85.160.44]:54513 "EHLO mail-pb0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752298AbaAQJ3Z convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:29:25 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id rq2so3863221pbb.31 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:29:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1389949304.8062.55.camel@porter.coelho.fi> References: <1389939896.8062.53.camel@porter.coelho.fi> <1389949304.8062.55.camel@porter.coelho.fi> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:29:24 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20140117_102939_021437_B0A5EF11) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] b43: fix the wrong assignment of status.freq in b43_rx() From: ZHAO Gang To: Luca Coelho Cc: Jonas Gorski , =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , b43-dev , Stefano Brivio Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. > -- > Luca. >