2014/1/17 ZHAO Gang <gamerh2o@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 09:56 +0100, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > 2014/1/17 Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> >> 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 <gamerh2o@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> ---
>>> >>> 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
--
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
