On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 10:37 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 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?
Sounds good to me. The actual fix is so simple and obvious that I don't
see any reason for not sending it as a fix + stable.
--
Luca.
--
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
