[ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[Andi Kleen]

I sent this to the athk9 maintainers earlier, but it looks like
Atheros' mailserver doesn't like my mailserver and I got a bounce. 
Resending to the lists.

-Andi

----- Forwarded message from Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> -----

Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:34:12 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: lrodriguez at atheros.com, nbd at openwrt.org, bjorn.smedman at venatech.se,
	mshajakhan at atheros.com, senthilkumar at atheros.com,
	vasanth at atheros.com, rmanoharan at atheros.com
Cc: stable at kernel.org
Subject: .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

Hi,

I've been looking at the extremly large number of ath9k patches which are in the
2.6.36 stable queue:

ath9k-add-locking-for-starting-the-pcu-on-rx.patch
ath9k-add-locking-for-stopping-rx.patch
ath9k-a-mpdu-rate-control-info-fix.patch
ath9k-built-in-rate-control-a-mpdu-fix.patch
ath9k-clean-up-fix-aggregation-session-flush.patch
ath9k-fix-an-aggregation-start-related-race-condition.patch
ath9k-fix-channel-flag-regd-issues-with-multiple-cards.patch
ath9k-fix-enabling-ani-tx-monitor-after-bg-scan.patch
ath9k-fix-incorrect-access-of-rate-flags-in-rc.patch
ath9k-fix-power-save-race-conditions.patch
ath9k-fix-regression-on-beacon-loss-after-bgscan.patch
ath9k-fix-regression-which-disabled-ps-on-ath9k.patch
ath9k-fix-regression-which-prevents-chip-sleep-after-cab-data.patch
ath9k-fix-spurious-mic-failure-reports.patch
ath9k-fix-timeout-on-stopping-rx-dma.patch

Some of them apply to .35, but a lot of others do not and I found
it difficult to decide which ones are suitable for 2.6.36 and what
their dependencies are.

Could you guys please indicate:
- Which patches are needed for 2.6.35
- If they have additional dependencies for .35 please note the upstream
commit in the standard format.

Right now I didn't merge any ath9x patches until this is resolved.

Thanks,
-Andi

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
ak at linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

[ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> I sent this to the athk9 maintainers earlier, but it looks like
> Atheros' mailserver doesn't like my mailserver and I got a bounce.
> Resending to the lists.

Heh, odd.

> -Andi
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> -----
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:34:12 +0100
> From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> To: lrodriguez at atheros.com, nbd at openwrt.org, bjorn.smedman at venatech.se,
> ? ? ? ?mshajakhan at atheros.com, senthilkumar at atheros.com,
> ? ? ? ?vasanth at atheros.com, rmanoharan at atheros.com
> Cc: stable at kernel.org
> Subject: .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking at the extremly large number of ath9k patches which are in the
> 2.6.36 stable queue:
>
> ath9k-add-locking-for-starting-the-pcu-on-rx.patch
> ath9k-add-locking-for-stopping-rx.patch
> ath9k-a-mpdu-rate-control-info-fix.patch
> ath9k-built-in-rate-control-a-mpdu-fix.patch
> ath9k-clean-up-fix-aggregation-session-flush.patch
> ath9k-fix-an-aggregation-start-related-race-condition.patch
> ath9k-fix-channel-flag-regd-issues-with-multiple-cards.patch
> ath9k-fix-enabling-ani-tx-monitor-after-bg-scan.patch
> ath9k-fix-incorrect-access-of-rate-flags-in-rc.patch
> ath9k-fix-power-save-race-conditions.patch
> ath9k-fix-regression-on-beacon-loss-after-bgscan.patch
> ath9k-fix-regression-which-disabled-ps-on-ath9k.patch
> ath9k-fix-regression-which-prevents-chip-sleep-after-cab-data.patch
> ath9k-fix-spurious-mic-failure-reports.patch
> ath9k-fix-timeout-on-stopping-rx-dma.patch
>
> Some of them apply to .35, but a lot of others do not and I found
> it difficult to decide which ones are suitable for 2.6.36

You mean for 2.6.35?

> and what
> their dependencies are.
>
> Could you guys please indicate:
> - Which patches are needed for 2.6.35
> - If they have additional dependencies for .35 please note the upstream
> commit in the standard format.

Eek, um OK, we'll give this a some good review and get back to you.
I'd like to also point out we have a few directories in the
compat-wireless-2.6.36.y branch which are used to add extra patches on
top of the stable 2.6.36.y kernel release, some of them are dragging
in pending stable patches (pending-stable/ directory), some are cherry
picked patches from linux-next (linux-next-cherry-picks/) and some are
patches posted to linux-wireless which at that time had yet to be
merged into linux-next (linux-next-pending/ ). The
compat-wireless-2.6.36-5-spn.tar.bz2 release for example contains all
of these three patch series. I should not the pending-stable patches
are *all* pending-stable patches for linux-wireless and bluetooth.

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/compat-wireless-2.6.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y;hb=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y

> Right now I didn't merge any ath9x patches until this is resolved.

This will take a bit of time, as some of these patches may require
manual backport and as you noted some dependencies. Given that this is
for long term we will do some work to get this to you. Its too bad we
can't get AR9003 support in there, that's a huge set of patches
though.

  Luis

Re: [ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> I sent this to the athk9 maintainers earlier, but it looks like
> Atheros' mailserver doesn't like my mailserver and I got a bounce.
> Resending to the lists.

Heh, odd.

> -Andi
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> -----
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:34:12 +0100
> From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> To: lrodriguez@atheros.com, nbd@openwrt.org, bjorn.smedman@venatech.se,
>        mshajakhan@atheros.com, senthilkumar@atheros.com,
>        vasanth@atheros.com, rmanoharan@atheros.com
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> Subject: .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking at the extremly large number of ath9k patches which are in the
> 2.6.36 stable queue:
>
> ath9k-add-locking-for-starting-the-pcu-on-rx.patch
> ath9k-add-locking-for-stopping-rx.patch
> ath9k-a-mpdu-rate-control-info-fix.patch
> ath9k-built-in-rate-control-a-mpdu-fix.patch
> ath9k-clean-up-fix-aggregation-session-flush.patch
> ath9k-fix-an-aggregation-start-related-race-condition.patch
> ath9k-fix-channel-flag-regd-issues-with-multiple-cards.patch
> ath9k-fix-enabling-ani-tx-monitor-after-bg-scan.patch
> ath9k-fix-incorrect-access-of-rate-flags-in-rc.patch
> ath9k-fix-power-save-race-conditions.patch
> ath9k-fix-regression-on-beacon-loss-after-bgscan.patch
> ath9k-fix-regression-which-disabled-ps-on-ath9k.patch
> ath9k-fix-regression-which-prevents-chip-sleep-after-cab-data.patch
> ath9k-fix-spurious-mic-failure-reports.patch
> ath9k-fix-timeout-on-stopping-rx-dma.patch
>
> Some of them apply to .35, but a lot of others do not and I found
> it difficult to decide which ones are suitable for 2.6.36

You mean for 2.6.35?

> and what
> their dependencies are.
>
> Could you guys please indicate:
> - Which patches are needed for 2.6.35
> - If they have additional dependencies for .35 please note the upstream
> commit in the standard format.

Eek, um OK, we'll give this a some good review and get back to you.
I'd like to also point out we have a few directories in the
compat-wireless-2.6.36.y branch which are used to add extra patches on
top of the stable 2.6.36.y kernel release, some of them are dragging
in pending stable patches (pending-stable/ directory), some are cherry
picked patches from linux-next (linux-next-cherry-picks/) and some are
patches posted to linux-wireless which at that time had yet to be
merged into linux-next (linux-next-pending/ ). The
compat-wireless-2.6.36-5-spn.tar.bz2 release for example contains all
of these three patch series. I should not the pending-stable patches
are *all* pending-stable patches for linux-wireless and bluetooth.

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/compat-wireless-2.6.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y;hb=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y

> Right now I didn't merge any ath9x patches until this is resolved.

This will take a bit of time, as some of these patches may require
manual backport and as you noted some dependencies. Given that this is
for long term we will do some work to get this to you. Its too bad we
can't get AR9003 support in there, that's a huge set of patches
though.

  Luis

[ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[Andi Kleen]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 07:56:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > I sent this to the athk9 maintainers earlier, but it looks like
> > Atheros' mailserver doesn't like my mailserver and I got a bounce.
> > Resending to the lists.
> 
> Heh, odd.

It complained that my IP was non trusted.

As far as I can see the problem is that your barracuda email
appliance looks for any IP addresses in email headers --
not just the IP address of the delivering mail server -- 
and since I send from a dynamic address as first
step it fails.

> > ath9k-fix-timeout-on-stopping-rx-dma.patch
> >
> > Some of them apply to .35, but a lot of others do not and I found
> > it difficult to decide which ones are suitable for 2.6.36
> 
> You mean for 2.6.35?

yes, sorry for the typo

> Eek, um OK, we'll give this a some good review and get back to you.

Thanks.

> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/compat-wireless-2.6.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y;hb=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y
> 
> > Right now I didn't merge any ath9x patches until this is resolved.
> 
> This will take a bit of time, as some of these patches may require
> manual backport and as you noted some dependencies. Given that this is

The question is if they are critical for .35. Are they?
If not can you just send the ones which are critical?

> for long term we will do some work to get this to you. Its too bad we
> can't get AR9003 support in there, that's a huge set of patches
> though.

Non trivial new hardware support is out of scope.

-Andi

-- 
ak at linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

Re: [ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[Andi Kleen]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 07:56:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > I sent this to the athk9 maintainers earlier, but it looks like
> > Atheros' mailserver doesn't like my mailserver and I got a bounce.
> > Resending to the lists.
> 
> Heh, odd.

It complained that my IP was non trusted.

As far as I can see the problem is that your barracuda email
appliance looks for any IP addresses in email headers --
not just the IP address of the delivering mail server -- 
and since I send from a dynamic address as first
step it fails.

> > ath9k-fix-timeout-on-stopping-rx-dma.patch
> >
> > Some of them apply to .35, but a lot of others do not and I found
> > it difficult to decide which ones are suitable for 2.6.36
> 
> You mean for 2.6.35?

yes, sorry for the typo

> Eek, um OK, we'll give this a some good review and get back to you.

Thanks.

> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/compat-wireless-2.6.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y;hb=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y
> 
> > Right now I didn't merge any ath9x patches until this is resolved.
> 
> This will take a bit of time, as some of these patches may require
> manual backport and as you noted some dependencies. Given that this is

The question is if they are critical for .35. Are they?
If not can you just send the ones which are critical?

> for long term we will do some work to get this to you. Its too bad we
> can't get AR9003 support in there, that's a huge set of patches
> though.

Non trivial new hardware support is out of scope.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

[ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:22:34AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 07:56:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > > I sent this to the athk9 maintainers earlier, but it looks like
> > > Atheros' mailserver doesn't like my mailserver and I got a bounce.
> > > Resending to the lists.
> > 
> > Heh, odd.
> 
> It complained that my IP was non trusted.
> 
> As far as I can see the problem is that your barracuda email
> appliance looks for any IP addresses in email headers --
> not just the IP address of the delivering mail server -- 
> and since I send from a dynamic address as first
> step it fails.

Thanks for the details, I'll nag at our IT.

> > > ath9k-fix-timeout-on-stopping-rx-dma.patch
> > >
> > > Some of them apply to .35, but a lot of others do not and I found
> > > it difficult to decide which ones are suitable for 2.6.36
> > 
> > You mean for 2.6.35?
> 
> yes, sorry for the typo
> 
> > Eek, um OK, we'll give this a some good review and get back to you.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/compat-wireless-2.6.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y;hb=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y
> > 
> > > Right now I didn't merge any ath9x patches until this is resolved.
> > 
> > This will take a bit of time, as some of these patches may require
> > manual backport and as you noted some dependencies. Given that this is
> 
> The question is if they are critical for .35. Are they?
> If not can you just send the ones which are critical?

The critical ones are all marked as stable accordingly, but since
a lot of stable fixes are for AR9003 and since 2.6.35 does not have
AR9003 support enabled you can disregard all AR9003 stable fixes
on 2.6.36. That itself might get you all the ath9k stable patches
you do need and will likley apply cleanly.

> > for long term we will do some work to get this to you. Its too bad we
> > can't get AR9003 support in there, that's a huge set of patches
> > though.
> 
> Non trivial new hardware support is out of scope.

Ok, fair enough.

  Luis

Re: [ath9k-devel] .36 ath9k patches for .35-longterm

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:22:34AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 07:56:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > > I sent this to the athk9 maintainers earlier, but it looks like
> > > Atheros' mailserver doesn't like my mailserver and I got a bounce.
> > > Resending to the lists.
> > 
> > Heh, odd.
> 
> It complained that my IP was non trusted.
> 
> As far as I can see the problem is that your barracuda email
> appliance looks for any IP addresses in email headers --
> not just the IP address of the delivering mail server -- 
> and since I send from a dynamic address as first
> step it fails.

Thanks for the details, I'll nag at our IT.

> > > ath9k-fix-timeout-on-stopping-rx-dma.patch
> > >
> > > Some of them apply to .35, but a lot of others do not and I found
> > > it difficult to decide which ones are suitable for 2.6.36
> > 
> > You mean for 2.6.35?
> 
> yes, sorry for the typo
> 
> > Eek, um OK, we'll give this a some good review and get back to you.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/compat-wireless-2.6.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y;hb=refs/heads/linux-2.6.36.y
> > 
> > > Right now I didn't merge any ath9x patches until this is resolved.
> > 
> > This will take a bit of time, as some of these patches may require
> > manual backport and as you noted some dependencies. Given that this is
> 
> The question is if they are critical for .35. Are they?
> If not can you just send the ones which are critical?

The critical ones are all marked as stable accordingly, but since
a lot of stable fixes are for AR9003 and since 2.6.35 does not have
AR9003 support enabled you can disregard all AR9003 stable fixes
on 2.6.36. That itself might get you all the ath9k stable patches
you do need and will likley apply cleanly.

> > for long term we will do some work to get this to you. Its too bad we
> > can't get AR9003 support in there, that's a huge set of patches
> > though.
> 
> Non trivial new hardware support is out of scope.

Ok, fair enough.

  Luis