From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751776Ab1FOF5Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:57:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18544 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751116Ab1FOF5W (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:57:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:57:32 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski Cc: Greg KH , stable@linux.kernel.org, donald.h.fry@intel.com, reinette.chatre@intel.com, wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com, ilw@linux.intel.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, ak@linux.intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] Please revert "iwlagn: Support new 5000 microcode." from 2.6.32 and 2.6.33 Message-ID: <20110615055731.GB2214@redhat.com> References: <20110613181317.GA3385@herton-IdeaPad-Y430> <20110614230344.GA2065@kroah.com> <20110615011443.GA13680@herton-IdeaPad-Y430> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110615011443.GA13680@herton-IdeaPad-Y430> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:14:44PM -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:03:44PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:13:18PM -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > > > The patch ("iwlagn: Support new 5000 microcode") shoudn't have been > > > applied on 2.6.32 and 2.6.33 stable trees, it doesn't support new > > > firmware file format, thus if the new firmware is on the disk, loading > > > fails, as reported on: > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/796336 > > > > > > Support for the iwlagn new firmware file format was only added beginning > > > with 2.6.35 (commit "iwlagn: implement loading a new firmware file > > > type"), so iwlagn works with new firmware only with 2.6.35 or later. > > > > Can I get an ack from the developer of the patch and the people involved > > with it first? It was asked to be backported for a reason, so I would > > at least like to get the people who asked for the backport to have a > > chance to respond please. > > > > It's only nice, why would you exclude them? > > I didn't intend to exclude anyone and I'm just reporting it, it didn't > came to my mind CC'ing people while sending to stable, and hopefully > everyone related are CC'ed now. > > Also note that this revert request is for 2.6.32 and 2.6.33 *only* > > And seems the right thing to do for them. > > The other stable release where this was applied (2.6.35) looks fine > but these two are too old to support the new firmware (don't work, need > extra patches backported which weren't, like the commit I mentioned -- > commit "iwlagn: implement loading a new firmware file type"), as yourself > can check reading the code/bug report, and what I wrote. ACK for revert. I could be wrong, but I think some more patches, except mentioned new format patch, are needed to make driver work reliably with the new firmware. Stanislaw