From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:13:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130130201343.GH2167@tuxdriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201301302058.13586.chunkeey@googlemail.com>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:58:13PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 08:07:04 PM John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status".
> > > > (12bf6f45d1703858)
> > > >
> > > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and
> > > > only a single PHY information packet for all the
> > > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the
> > > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
> > >
> > > ACK
> >
> > OK, I'm confused...
> Ah yes, maybe I can explain it.
>
> > this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as
> > "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status".
> > But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch
> > posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU
> > status" that seems to be different. What a I
> > missing?
> Nothing I hope.
>
> The patch "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" might have
> the date 2013-01-18, but it was sent on the 26th... A week after
> the RFC.
>
> Note: The RFC is just both patches ("report A-MPDU status" and
> "iwlegacy: fix antenna mask") merged into one. I did that because
> I wanted to point out the issue of the *shared* bit (antenna mask
> vs ampdu indicator). And thankfully, Johannes explained that...
> "the definition in question has always been the same for all
> hardware. I just didn't fix it for 4965 since it was split off
> to iwlegacy already."
>
> Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time,
> that's why it has a newer date.
>
> > Is this the right patch to merge?
> Yes.
Cool, thanks for the explanation!
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-30 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-18 22:47 [PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status Christian Lamparter
2013-01-28 10:08 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-01-30 19:07 ` John W. Linville
2013-01-30 19:58 ` Christian Lamparter
2013-01-30 20:13 ` John W. Linville [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130130201343.GH2167@tuxdriver.com \
--to=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=chunkeey@googlemail.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sgruszka@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).