From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:50121 "EHLO mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752160AbaJFMoN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2014 08:44:13 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id u20so3532825oif.28 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 05:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 07:44:02 -0500 From: Seth Forshee To: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFT] iwlwifi: dvm: drop non VO frames when flushing Message-ID: <20141006124402.GC131459@ubuntu-hedt> (sfid-20141006_144416_418301_37F2544D) References: <1412517432-16309-1-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> <20141006123314.GA131459@ubuntu-hedt> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB31B53CBD4@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> <20141006124307.GB131459@ubuntu-hedt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20141006124307.GB131459@ubuntu-hedt> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 07:43:07AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:35:46PM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [RFT] iwlwifi: dvm: drop non VO frames when flushing > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 04:57:12PM +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > > > > + if (vif) > > > > + scd_queues &= ~BIT(vif->hw_queue[IEEE80211_AC_VO]); > > > > > > I'm backporting this to 3.13, and this part doesn't work unless > > > 77be2c54c5bd26279abc13807398771d80cda37a is also backported. Is this > > > critical, or can it be omitted in the backport? > > > > > > > 77be2c54c5bd26279abc13807398771d80cda37a isn't really critical, but it is a dependency, and it is safe IMO. > > But I'd wait for a bit more testing :) The patch isn't even in my tree yet :) > > My backport is for testing too. Most of our bugs are against Ubuntu > 14.04, which uses 3.13. Seems better to have them test this change in > isolation rather than also testing everything which has changed up to > 3.17. > > I agree the patch is safe, Sorry, I was ambiguous here. I mean that 77be2c54c5bd26279abc13807398771d80cda37a is safe to backport. > but I'd also prefer to have it tested in the > form which would eventually get applied to the 3.13 extended stable > tree. So I take it for stable you would advocate applying both patches?