diff for duplicates of <4CD14D39.5020401@openwrt.org> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 6176574..f00b021 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ -On 2010-11-03 12:35 PM, Bj?rn Smedman wrote: +On 2010-11-03 12:35 PM, Björn Smedman wrote: > This is one good looking patch. :) And I agree, looking at the header > qos is good to avoid. > > But there is still the risk of queue selection mismatch as I see it... > See comments below. > -> /Bj?rn +> /Björn >> - >> /* XXX: Remove me once we don't depend on ath9k_channel for all @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ through the cabq. > frames go? :) I would much prefer a BUG_ON(txq->pending_frames < 0). BUG_ON is not a good idea, it's only supposed to be used for cases with potentially severe side effects, things like random memory corruption. -A counting imbalance here would be completely harmless, so@most we +A counting imbalance here would be completely harmless, so at most we should have a WARN_ON_ONCE here. >> spin_lock_bh(&txq->axq_lock); diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index b21ba92..b762770 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -7,19 +7,21 @@ "ref\04CD08C86.9030202@openwrt.org\0" "ref\0AANLkTi=zzGv7Vagb18Rpby=Xo_+g2yuVoFvAejU1KEud@mail.gmail.com\0" "From\0Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>\0" - "Subject\0[ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k: fix tx queue selection\0" + "Subject\0Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k: fix tx queue selection\0" "Date\0Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:53:29 +0100\0" - "To\0ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org\0" + "To\0Bj\303\266rn Smedman <bjorn.smedman@venatech.se>\0" + "Cc\0ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" + " linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" - "On 2010-11-03 12:35 PM, Bj?rn Smedman wrote:\n" + "On 2010-11-03 12:35 PM, Bj\303\266rn Smedman wrote:\n" "> This is one good looking patch. :) And I agree, looking at the header\n" "> qos is good to avoid.\n" "> \n" "> But there is still the risk of queue selection mismatch as I see it...\n" "> See comments below.\n" "> \n" - "> /Bj?rn\n" + "> /Bj\303\266rn\n" "\n" ">> -\n" ">> /* XXX: Remove me once we don't depend on ath9k_channel for all\n" @@ -110,7 +112,7 @@ "> frames go? :) I would much prefer a BUG_ON(txq->pending_frames < 0).\n" "BUG_ON is not a good idea, it's only supposed to be used for cases with\n" "potentially severe side effects, things like random memory corruption.\n" - "A counting imbalance here would be completely harmless, so@most we\n" + "A counting imbalance here would be completely harmless, so at most we\n" "should have a WARN_ON_ONCE here.\n" "\n" ">> spin_lock_bh(&txq->axq_lock);\n" @@ -224,4 +226,4 @@ "\n" - Felix -3bd3a14ef1cfac66c39af3dcfc28197ae3f77d6945f81efbe398e369c75bee44 +525987f1277e236cf2b629865b20013cb249b7ede07bb5789bd959afad06255f
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.