Luca,
This is my first time sending a fix for iwlwifi and I haven't seen any
feedback or seen the code merged. Should I have sent this somewhere
else?
Thanks,
Mark
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:06 PM Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Mark Asselstine <asselsm@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The loop variable 'i' is passed to iwl_mvm_remove_inactive_tids() as
> the queue number to operate on. iwl_mvm_remove_inactive_tids()
> operates on that queue number then returns true if the queue can be
> reused, the returned bool is stored in 'ret'. We do not want to set
> 'free_queue' to the returned bool stored in 'ret' but rather the loop
> variable, so we are actually operating on the right queue through the
> rest of iwl_mvm_inactivity_check() and have it return a proper queue
> number.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <asselsm@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c
> index 9db2555518aa..2fcaf779649a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c
> @@ -1166,7 +1166,7 @@ static int iwl_mvm_inactivity_check(struct iwl_mvm *mvm, u8 alloc_for_sta)
> &changetid_queues);
> if (ret >= 0 && free_queue < 0) {
> queue_owner = sta;
> - free_queue = ret;
> + free_queue = i;
> }
> /* only unlock sta lock - we still need the queue info lock */
> spin_unlock_bh(&mvmsta->lock);
> --
> 2.20.1
>
