[PATCH 1/2] b43: fix the wrong assignment of status.freq in b43_rx()

[Jonas Gorski]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Luca Coelho <luca at coelho.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 09:56 +0100, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2014/1/17 Luca Coelho <luca at coelho.fi>:
>> >> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 13:27 +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
>> >>> In following patch, replace b43 specific helper function with kernel
>> >>> api to reduce code duplication.
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: ZHAO Gang <gamerh2o at gmail.com>
>> >>> ---
>> >>>  drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c | 4 ++--
>> >>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c
>> >>> index 4ae63f4..50e5ddb 100644
>> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c
>> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/xmit.c
>> >>> @@ -821,10 +821,10 @@ void b43_rx(struct b43_wldev *dev, struct sk_buff *skb, const void *_rxhdr)
>> >>>                * channel number in b43. */
>> >>>               if (chanstat & B43_RX_CHAN_5GHZ) {
>> >>>                       status.band = IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ;
>> >>> -                     status.freq = b43_freq_to_channel_5ghz(chanid);
>> >>> +                     status.freq = b43_channel_to_freq_5ghz(chanid);
>> >>>               } else {
>> >>>                       status.band = IEEE80211_BAND_2GHZ;
>> >>> -                     status.freq = b43_freq_to_channel_2ghz(chanid);
>> >>> +                     status.freq = b43_channel_to_freq_2ghz(chanid);
>> >>>               }
>> >>>               break;
>> >>>       default:
>> >>
>> >> Why do you need this patch if you're going to remove these calls in the
>> >> next patch anyway?
>> >
>> > I was thinking about this for a moment too. You could just make a one
>> > patch and note in commit message that "translation" was reversed.
>>
>> That would mean mixing fixes and improvements, which is something you
>> are not supposed to do, so IMHO having these split into two is
>> correct. Think about stable maintainers wanting the fix but not the
>> other change because it might introduce unknown side effects.
>
> Makes sense.  In such case, the first patch should be clearly marked as
> a bug fix, so at least the commit message should be changed (ie.
> mentioning the next patch in the series is useless).

Well, it uses "fix" in the subject ;-). But I agree about the commit
message; it should describe the changes of this patch and the impact
of the fixed defect, so it's easier to decide whether to backport the
fix or not.


Jonas