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

[Rafał Miłecki]

2014/1/17 ZHAO Gang <gamerh2o at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:01 PM, 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).
>>
>
> I am OK to send this fix either in one patch or two, actually I have
> sent a version 2 which is a one patch version :-)
>
> I'm not sure if this patch is needed for stable, yes, as you said, if
> it's for stable, the commit message should be changed.

Thanks for your help guys.

I think it may be the best idea to send
1/2 as fix (probably 3.14) + stable CC
2/2 as improvement (for next)
Does it make sense?

-- 
Rafał