lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [PATCH][RESEND] wireless: convert !X & Y to !(X & Y) iniwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed()
Date
From
On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:42 AM, John W. Linville  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:30:58AM -0700, Chatre, Reinette wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:04 AM, Roel Kluin wrote:
>>
>>> from include/linux/ieee80211.h:274:
>>> #define IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH 0x0002 ---
>>> ! has a higher priority than &
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> index d727de8..6576757 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> @@ -4589,7 +4589,7 @@ static u8
>>> iwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed(struct iwl4965_priv *priv,
>>>
>>> if (sta_ht_inf) {
>>> if ((!sta_ht_inf->ht_supported) ||
>>> - (!sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH))
>>> + (!(sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH)))
return 0;
>>> }
>>
>> This patch has already been acked and merged into wireless-testing,
>> and afaik already pushed further upstream.
>
> Yes, but FWIW the problem exists in the 2.6.25 stream as well.
> I've been holding-back a patch to fix it there, trying to decide if it
> is worth creating the merge conflict to fix it there. I'm inclined
> to think it is better to let things lay as they are and send that
> patch for the -stable series once 2.6.25 ships.
>
> Any thoughts on that?

I see. The patch is small and I thus assume a merge conflict will be
easy to resolve. Yet ... I do not know what is really involved in the
upstream code movements, while I know that you do. If you say it is
better to wait until stable then I am ok with it.

Thanks

Reinette


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-25 19:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site