Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:50777 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752052AbaAQJhX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:37:23 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id wo20so4050174obc.33 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:37:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1389939896.8062.53.camel@porter.coelho.fi> <1389949304.8062.55.camel@porter.coelho.fi> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:37:22 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20140117_103738_018332_13FF2CFB) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] b43: fix the wrong assignment of status.freq in b43_rx() From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: ZHAO Gang Cc: Luca Coelho , Jonas Gorski , "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: 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? -- Rafał