From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:44394 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751672AbcDUM0D convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:26:03 -0400 From: "Valo, Kalle" To: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" CC: David Miller , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: pull request: iwlwifi 2016-04-12 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:25:57 +0000 Message-ID: <87mvoncfn0.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20160421_142608_006317_E21056C5) References: <1460448889.2630.12.camel@intel.com> <87oa9borxv.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <87oa9borxv.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (Kalle Valo's message of "Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:41:16 +0300") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Kalle Valo writes: > "Grumbach, Emmanuel" writes: > >> I have here a pull request for 4.6. There is patch in this pull request >> that has been sent to -next already but should really have been >> included in the current cycle. Sorry for the mess. >> >> The commit appears in -next as: >> >> commit a0b09f13036cedfd67c9cb4b9d05138e7022723d >> Author: Ayala Beker >> Date: Wed Feb 3 15:36:52 2016 +0200 >> >> iwlwifi: mvm: update GSCAN capabilities >> >> Gscan capabilities were updated with new capabilities supported >> by the device. Update GSCAN capabilities TLV. >> >> I modified the commit message to better emphasis the need to have it in >> the current release. You'll see it in this pull request as: >> >> commit cd49727e1a2bccc4ff008dde24c2f8430dd9e368 >> Author: Ayala Beker >> Date: Wed Feb 3 15:36:52 2016 +0200 >> >> iwlwifi: mvm: avoid to WARN about gscan capabilities >> >> Gscan capabilities were updated with new capabilities supported >> by the device. Update GSCAN capabilities TLV and avoid to WARN >> if the firmware does not have the new capabilities. > > I feel uneasy having the same commit on both trees, but that might just > me. Dave, how do you suggest to handle cases like this when we want to > get a fix from -next to the current release -rc release? Dave replied privately that this is ok. So I'll pull this shortly. -- Kalle Valo