linux-kernel - Re: [stable] [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: unify iwl_setup_rxon

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:34:00 -0800
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:	Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>, stable@...nel.org,
	Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [stable] [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: unify iwl_setup_rxon_timing

Hi Greg,

> > >> This patch unifies setup_rxon_timing funcions
> > >> of AGN and 3945. HWs differ only in supported maximal
> > >> beacon interval. This is reflected in hw_paras.max_beacon_itrvl
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@...driver.com>
> > >> (cherry picked from commit 2c2f3b33888419fb9e7d015b9dc67b9db4437efa)
> > >>
> > >> Conflicts:
> > >>
> > >> 	drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-dev.h
> > > 
> > > What does this mean?
> > > 
> > After cherry-pick:
> > 
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-dev.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-dev.h
> > @@@ -625,7 -608,7 +625,11 @@@ struct iwl_hw_params 
> > 	u8  max_stations;
> > 	u8  bcast_sta_id;
> > 	u8 fat_channel;
> > ++<<<<<<< HEAD:drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-dev.h
> >  +	u8 sw_crypto;
> > ++=======
> > +	u8  max_beacon_itrvl;   /* in 1024 ms */
> > ++>>>>>>> 2c2f3b3... iwlwifi: unify iwl_setup_rxon_timing:drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-dev.h
> > 	u32 max_inst_size;
> > 	u32 max_data_size;
> > 	u32 max_bsm_size;
> > 
> > The sw_crypto is removed in the prior commit (90e8e4), and the commit
> > is not in the stable tree. We still need sw_crypto.
> > 
> > So, the patch is modified to keep sw_crypto.
> 
> And why would we care?  We've never used this kind of marking before in
> the kernel changelogs that I know of.
> 
> > >> CC: stable@...nel.org
> > >> Signed-off-by: Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>
> > >>
> > >> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/496496
> > > 
> > > What are you expecting this patch to be applied to?
> > > 
> > > confused,
> > Please consider applying to linux-2.6.31.y
> 
> I need the subsystem maintainer to agree with this, have they?

I agree here. Not copying Reinette on this is just wrong. And blindly
picking some patches and sending them for -stable even more.

Regards

Marcel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/