From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:33475 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759505Ab0EMW6C (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2010 18:58:02 -0400 Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so1319783wyb.19 for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1273788932.7796.376.camel@rchatre-DESK> References: <1273787385-9248-1-git-send-email-reinette.chatre@intel.com> <1273788932.7796.376.camel@rchatre-DESK> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 00:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] iwlwifi fixes for 2.6.34 From: Sedat Dilek To: reinette chatre Cc: "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sorry, I was confused by the comments in [1] and I am especially interested in the internal scans stuff: Port following patch to 3945. "commit 90c4162ff59a3281b6d2f7206740be6217bd6758 Author: Johannes Berg Date: Wed Apr 7 00:21:36 2010 -0700 iwlwifi: fix scan races" The above mentionned patch is already accepted to upstream (2.6.34) [2] and iwlagn _is_ already using internal scans. So why is iwl3945 different in 2.6.34 especially in that case? On first sight, I can't see the correlation of "iwl3945: add plcp error checking" [3] and "iwl3945: fix scan races" [1]. - Sedat - [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/98326/ [2] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=88be026490ed89c2ffead81a52531fbac5507e01 [3] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/iwlwifi/iwlwifi-2.6.git;a=commit;h=a29576a7844326c5223f4d4adbfd3f4d64173d4c On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM, reinette chatre wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 14:54 -0700, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> Whats with "iwl3945: fix scan races"? > > hmmm ... cryptic indeed ... I assume you are asking "Why is "iwl3945: > fix scan races" not part of a submission to 2.6.34? > > If that is the case then yes, indeed , we did not submit "iwl3945: fix > scan races" to 2.6.34 since the scan races being fixed is between normal > (mac80211 initiated) and internal (as part of rf reset) scans. Like I > mention in the cover letter of the submission that includes that patch > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/50651 ) we > introduce RF reset usage to 3945 through the new "plcp error checking" > patch and thus need the scan races fix for that. Before that patch > nothing in iwl3945 was using RF reset and thus no internal scanning that > could trigger a race. > > Reinette > > > > >