linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.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 20:58:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201301302058.13586.chunkeey@googlemail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130130190703.GB2167@tuxdriver.com>

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.

Best Regards,
	Christian

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-30 19:58 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 [this message]
2013-01-30 20:13       ` John W. Linville

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=201301302058.13586.chunkeey@googlemail.com \
    --to=chunkeey@googlemail.com \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
    --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).