Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1440201 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the net-next tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the  net-next tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-11 04:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the net-next tree Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> - 2016-07-11 10:10 +0200

#1440201 — linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the net-next tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree got a
conflict in:

  drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c

between commit:

  7947d3e075cd ("mac80211: Add support for beacon report radio measurement")

from the net-next tree and commit:

  69e046423ad7 ("iwlwifi: mvm: change scan timeout to a delayed work")

from the wireless-drivers-next tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c
index 1cac10c5d818,fb25d9e41912..000000000000
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c
@@@ -400,9 -396,10 +400,9 @@@ void iwl_mvm_rx_lmac_scan_complete_noti
  			       iwl_mvm_ebs_status_str(scan_notif->ebs_status));
  
  		mvm->scan_status &= ~IWL_MVM_SCAN_REGULAR;
 -		ieee80211_scan_completed(mvm->hw,
 -				scan_notif->status == IWL_SCAN_OFFLOAD_ABORTED);
 +		ieee80211_scan_completed(mvm->hw, &info);
  		iwl_mvm_unref(mvm, IWL_MVM_REF_SCAN);
- 		del_timer(&mvm->scan_timer);
+ 		cancel_delayed_work(&mvm->scan_timeout_dwork);
  	} else {
  		IWL_ERR(mvm,
  			"got scan complete notification but no scan is running\n");
@@@ -1433,13 -1432,9 +1435,13 @@@ void iwl_mvm_rx_umac_scan_complete_noti
  
  	/* if the scan is already stopping, we don't need to notify mac80211 */
  	if (mvm->scan_uid_status[uid] == IWL_MVM_SCAN_REGULAR) {
 -		ieee80211_scan_completed(mvm->hw, aborted);
 +		struct cfg80211_scan_info info = {
 +			.aborted = aborted,
 +		};
 +
 +		ieee80211_scan_completed(mvm->hw, &info);
  		iwl_mvm_unref(mvm, IWL_MVM_REF_SCAN);
- 		del_timer(&mvm->scan_timer);
+ 		cancel_delayed_work(&mvm->scan_timeout_dwork);
  	} else if (mvm->scan_uid_status[uid] == IWL_MVM_SCAN_SCHED) {
  		ieee80211_sched_scan_stopped(mvm->hw);
  		mvm->sched_scan_pass_all = SCHED_SCAN_PASS_ALL_DISABLED;
@@@ -1644,14 -1630,9 +1646,14 @@@ out
  		 * to release the scan reference here.
  		 */
  		iwl_mvm_unref(mvm, IWL_MVM_REF_SCAN);
- 		del_timer(&mvm->scan_timer);
+ 		cancel_delayed_work(&mvm->scan_timeout_dwork);
 -		if (notify)
 -			ieee80211_scan_completed(mvm->hw, true);
 +		if (notify) {
 +			struct cfg80211_scan_info info = {
 +				.aborted = true,
 +			};
 +
 +			ieee80211_scan_completed(mvm->hw, &info);
 +		}
  	} else if (notify) {
  		ieee80211_sched_scan_stopped(mvm->hw);
  		mvm->sched_scan_pass_all = SCHED_SCAN_PASS_ALL_DISABLED;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1440340 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the net-next tree

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:

> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree got a
> conflict in:
>
>   drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   7947d3e075cd ("mac80211: Add support for beacon report radio measurement")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
>   69e046423ad7 ("iwlwifi: mvm: change scan timeout to a delayed work")
>
> from the wireless-drivers-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Thanks. I'm planning to submit a pull request to Dave tomorrow and I'll
include instruction how to solve these mac80211 API conflicts.

-- 
Kalle Valo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web