On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:32:41PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > commit dd7a2509b3a79b290730a9c6a784bf03fedabb9a
> > Author: Johannes Berg <johannes.b...@intel.com>
> > Date: Wed Apr 28 23:33:10 2010 -0700
> >
> > iwlagn: implement loading a new firmware file type
> >
> > > This was reported by Gentoo, Arch, and Canonical developers as causing
> > > problems for their users:
> > > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24302
> > This is a bug about 2.6.32.
> >
> > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359445
> > This looks like problem when only 8.83.5 (v5) firmware is available
> > on the system, but kernel is old and support only v2 version. This
> > should be solved by providing both old 8.24.2 (v2) and new 8.83.5 (v5)
> > firmware blobs in one package.
> >
> > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/796336
> > Also 2.6.32 case.
>
> I took them from .32. Should I drop them?
Reverting support for v5 firmware in .32 is ok.
> > There could be reasons for this change, but I do not see them here.
>
> Can you please clearly indicate which patches I should drop and which keep?
You already decided to drop this patch for now, good.
I can observe lot's of "Received BA when not expected" when new firmware
is used, not happen with old firmware. So this commit should be picked
from upstream:
commit bfd36103ec26599557c2bd3225a1f1c9267f8fcb
Author: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgrus...@redhat.com>
Date: Fri Apr 29 17:51:06 2011 +0200
iwlagn: fix "Received BA when not expected"
However we already applied it on 2.6.35 based Fedora-14 kernel (together with
some other iwlwifi patches), and get report about regression. So I need
to figure this out. I'm going to look more at the issue, and possibly
post some backport patches, when solve problems. For now, I think we should
not do anything with iwlwifi in 2.6.35, as long nobody will report some
regression.
Stanislaw
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
stable@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
