RE: [PATCH][RESEND] wireless: convert !X & Y to !(X & Y) iniwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed()

[Chatre, Reinette]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:42 AM, John W. Linville  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:30:58AM -0700, Chatre, Reinette wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:04 AM, Roel Kluin  wrote:
>> 
>>> from include/linux/ieee80211.h:274:
>>> #define IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH              0x0002 ---
>>> ! has a higher priority than &
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> index d727de8..6576757 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c
>>> @@ -4589,7 +4589,7 @@ static u8
>>> iwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed(struct iwl4965_priv *priv,
>>> 
>>> 	if (sta_ht_inf) {
>>> 		if ((!sta_ht_inf->ht_supported) ||
>>> -		   (!sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH))
>>> +		   (!(sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH)))
return 0;
>>> 	}
>> 
>> This patch has already been acked and merged into wireless-testing,
>> and afaik already pushed further upstream.
> 
> Yes, but FWIW the problem exists in the 2.6.25 stream as well.
> I've been holding-back a patch to fix it there, trying to decide if it
> is worth creating the merge conflict to fix it there.  I'm inclined
> to think it is better to let things lay as they are and send that
> patch for the -stable series once 2.6.25 ships.
> 
> Any thoughts on that?

I see. The patch is small and I thus assume a merge conflict will be
easy to resolve. Yet ... I do not know what is really involved in the
upstream code movements, while I know that you do. If you say it is
better to wait until stable then I am ok with it.

Thanks

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