Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:42000 "EHLO mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751139AbbAKNAX (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:00:23 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id bs8so9853431wib.4 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:00:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54B273E1.6030306@googlemail.com> (sfid-20150111_140027_100097_B47C4919) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:00:17 +0000 From: Chris Clayton MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kvalo@codeaurora.org CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: IWLWIFI - 3.18-stable References: <54B272F0.70307@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <54B272F0.70307@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Doh! Cut and paste error ... On 01/11/15 12:56, Chris Clayton wrote: > Hi Kalle, > > Having recently bought a new laptop, I've just started using the iwlwifi driver for wireless networking. I found both > 3.18.x and the current development tree to be very unreliable due to frequent disconnections from the router. > > Before you merged them into your tree, I grabbed the latest fixes from iwlwifi-fixes tree and applied them to the > development kernel. Since I did that I've had no problems at all with dropped connections. I then looked at each patch > to see whether it might be applicable to 3.18 and found that two of them looked as if they should be useful. They are: > > c93edc639392df733c7d72db4376a9add775d18a - iwlwifi: mvm: don't allow diversity if BT Coex / TT forbid it The above should have been: c93edc639392df733c7d72db4376a9add775d18a - iwlwifi: mvm: fix Rx with both chains > > a9dc5060bf3a32ac3dad472f15416054b92dc5b5 - iwlwifi: mvm: fix out of bounds access to tid_to_mac80211_ac > > With those two applied, I've had stable wireless networking on 3.18.2 and, more recently, 3.18.2. Consequently, they > seem appropriate for tagging for 3.18-stable, but, as far as I can see, they haven't been tagged for stable. Apologies, > if I'm mistaken, but if I'm not, could you consider submitting the two patches for inclusion in 3.18, please? Of course, > they may be appropriate to earlier kernels too - I haven't looked. > > Thanks > > Chris >