Re: [RFT] iwlwifi: dvm: drop non VO frames when flushing

[Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:47:41PM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> I guess... I can rework the discussed patch (drop non VO ...) to work without
> 77be2c54c5bd26279abc13807398771d80cda37a, but is it really worth it?
> I don't see any reason not to backport 77be2c54c5bd26279abc13807398771d80cda37a.
> IMHO, the easiest is to backport 77be2c54c5bd26279abc13807398771d80cda37a and
> apply the drop non VO on top of it.
> 
> What am I missing?

Nothing, except that stable kernel rules dictate that only bug fixes
will be applied. 77be2c54c5 isn't a bug fix. If it's a necessary
prerequisite then I suspect they'd be accomodating, but if it's not
necessary then they might request a backport which doesn't require
77be2c54c5.

No sense it beating it to death now though. I'll backport both, and if
the stable trees end up with something different I can ask for
additional testing. Especially if it involves more than simply dropping
those two lines.

Thanks,
Seth