On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 08:07:04 PM John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status".
> > > (12bf6f45d1703858)
> > >
> > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and
> > > only a single PHY information packet for all the
> > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the
> > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap.
> > >
> > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ACK
>
> OK, I'm confused...
Ah yes, maybe I can explain it.
> this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as
> "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status".
> But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch
> posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU
> status" that seems to be different. What a I
> missing?
Nothing I hope.
The patch "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" might have
the date 2013-01-18, but it was sent on the 26th... A week after
the RFC.
Note: The RFC is just both patches ("report A-MPDU status" and
"iwlegacy: fix antenna mask") merged into one. I did that because
I wanted to point out the issue of the *shared* bit (antenna mask
vs ampdu indicator). And thankfully, Johannes explained that...
"the definition in question has always been the same for all
hardware. I just didn't fix it for 4965 since it was split off
to iwlegacy already."
Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time,
that's why it has a newer date.
> Is this the right patch to merge?
Yes.
Best Regards,
Christian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
