Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Patch "iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code" has been added to the 4.7-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 3 participants 8 messages Oct 4, 2016 – Oct 5, 2016

Subsystems (2)
Stable branch Intel wireless wifi link (iwlwifi)
lore
Share & tools
lore

[email protected]

author maintainer Applied
#0 lore raw

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code

to the 4.7-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
iwlwifi-mvm-handle-frame_release-in-mq-code.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.7 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

Quoted 1 line

From 58035432d60616cc2ef6514a3d0e6d6ad01bf705 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:33:26 +0200
Subject: iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code

From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>

commit 58035432d60616cc2ef6514a3d0e6d6ad01bf705 upstream.

For some reason, the FRAME_RELEASE message handling for the default queue ended up being in the only/default queue for non-RSS devices; fix that and handle FRAME_RELEASE properly on the default queue for RSS devices.

Fixes 585a6fccf5b8 ("iwlwifi: mvm: infrastructure for frame-release message")
Signed-off-by Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Luca Coelho <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ops.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ops.c +2 -2
@@ -936,8 +936,6 @@ static void iwl_mvm_rx(struct iwl_op_mod
 
 	if (likely(pkt->hdr.cmd == REPLY_RX_MPDU_CMD))
 		iwl_mvm_rx_rx_mpdu(mvm, napi, rxb);
-	else if (pkt->hdr.cmd == FRAME_RELEASE)
-		iwl_mvm_rx_frame_release(mvm, napi, rxb, 0);
 	else if (pkt->hdr.cmd == REPLY_RX_PHY_CMD)
 		iwl_mvm_rx_rx_phy_cmd(mvm, rxb);
 	else

@@ -958,6 +956,8 @@ static void iwl_mvm_rx_mq(struct iwl_op_
 	else if (unlikely(pkt->hdr.group_id == DATA_PATH_GROUP &&
 			  pkt->hdr.cmd == RX_QUEUES_NOTIFICATION))
 		iwl_mvm_rx_queue_notif(mvm, rxb, 0);
+	else if (pkt->hdr.cmd == FRAME_RELEASE)
+		iwl_mvm_rx_frame_release(mvm, napi, rxb, 0);
 	else
 		iwl_mvm_rx_common(mvm, rxb, pkt);
 }

Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from [email protected] are

queue-4.7/iwlwifi-mvm-handle-frame_release-in-mq-code.patch

#1 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 16:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code

to the 4.7-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue
.git;a=summary

Quoted 6 lines

The filename of the patch is:
     iwlwifi-mvm-handle-frame_release-in-mq-code.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.7 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

I have no particular objections to including this, but it only fixes something for (unreleased) hardware that will likely never work on the 4.7 kernel (due to also unreleased firmware, and likelihood of never releasing older firmware versions).

So there's almost certainly no point, but OTOH it also cannot possibly hurt since this code path is only taken with that particular hardware.

johannes

author maintainer
#2 lore raw
Quoted 16 lines · Johannes Berg
Quoted 8 lines · On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 16:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

����iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code

to the 4.7-stable tree which can be found at:
����http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue .git;a=summary

Quoted 6 lines

The filename of the patch is:
�����iwlwifi-mvm-handle-frame_release-in-mq-code.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.7 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

Quoted 7 lines

I have no particular objections to including this, but it only fixes something for (unreleased) hardware that will likely never work on the 4.7 kernel (due to also unreleased firmware, and likelihood of never releasing older firmware versions).

So there's almost certainly no point, but OTOH it also cannot possibly hurt since this code path is only taken with that particular hardware.

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped it from the stable queue.

greg k-h

#3 lore raw
Quoted 24 lines · On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 08:47 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 23 lines · Johannes Berg
Quoted 9 lines · On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 16:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code

to the 4.7-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue
.git;a=summary

Quoted 6 lines

The filename of the patch is:
     iwlwifi-mvm-handle-frame_release-in-mq-code.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.7 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

I have no particular objections to including this, but it only fixes something for (unreleased) hardware that will likely never work on the 4.7 kernel (due to also unreleased firmware, and likelihood of never releasing older firmware versions).

Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines

So there's almost certainly no point, but OTOH it also cannot possibly hurt since this code path is only taken with that particular hardware.

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped it from the stable queue.

Is there a way to mark the Fixes tag with the minimum kernel version as we would do e.g. with "Cc: [email protected] # 4.8+"?

Signature · 2 lines
Cheers,
Luca.
author maintainer
#4 lore raw
Quoted 25 lines · Luciano
Quoted 24 lines · On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 08:47 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 23 lines · Johannes Berg
Quoted 9 lines · On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 16:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

����iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code

to the 4.7-stable tree which can be found at:
����http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue .git;a=summary

Quoted 6 lines

The filename of the patch is:
�����iwlwifi-mvm-handle-frame_release-in-mq-code.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.7 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

I have no particular objections to including this, but it only fixes something for (unreleased) hardware that will likely never work on the 4.7 kernel (due to also unreleased firmware, and likelihood of never releasing older firmware versions).

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines

So there's almost certainly no point, but OTOH it also cannot possibly hurt since this code path is only taken with that particular hardware.

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped it from the stable queue.

Is there a way to mark the Fixes tag with the minimum kernel version as we would do e.g. with "Cc: [email protected]�# 4.8+"?

The fixes tag is to show what commit it fixed. And since you were fixing a patch that is in the 4.7 release, you are implying that it is resolving an issue for that kernel, right?

So just don't use the fixes: tag if that's not what you are really doing.

thanks,

greg k-h

#5 lore raw
Quoted 36 lines · On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 09:24 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 35 lines · Luciano
Quoted 32 lines · On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 08:47 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 20 lines · Johannes Berg
Quoted 10 lines · On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 16:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    iwlwifi: mvm: handle FRAME_RELEASE in MQ code

to the 4.7-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue
.git;a=summary

Quoted 6 lines

The filename of the patch is:
     iwlwifi-mvm-handle-frame_release-in-mq-code.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.7 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

Quoted 7 lines

I have no particular objections to including this, but it only fixes something for (unreleased) hardware that will likely never work on the 4.7 kernel (due to also unreleased firmware, and likelihood of never releasing older firmware versions).

So there's almost certainly no point, but OTOH it also cannot possibly hurt since this code path is only taken with that particular hardware.

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped it from the stable queue.

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Is there a way to mark the Fixes tag with the minimum kernel version as we would do e.g. with "Cc: [email protected] # 4.8+"?

The fixes tag is to show what commit it fixed. And since you were fixing a patch that is in the 4.7 release, you are implying that it is resolving an issue for that kernel, right?

Well, what I meant is what happened in this case.  We try to keep our upstream driver in sync with our internal trees, sometimes (again, as in this case) when the HW is not even out yet.

Let's say the hardware in question would be supported fully only from 4.9+, but a pre-work patch is already in 4.8.  The Fixes tag *does* point to a real commit it fixes, but it is only relevant for 4.9+...

Anyway, this is probably a very rare case. I was just nitpicking and thinking whether we could have prevented the (small) overhead of getting the patch in the stable queue, getting a comment and removing it from the queue, when we already knew from the beginning that it was irrelevant for some kernels.

--
Cheers,
Luca.

author maintainer
#6 lore raw
Quoted 1 line · Luciano

Anyway, this is probably a very rare case.

Yes it is, this is the first time it has come up in over a decade of stable kernels that I can tell :)

Quoted 4 lines

I was just nitpicking and thinking whether we could have prevented the (small) overhead of getting the patch in the stable queue, getting a comment and removing it from the queue, when we already knew from the beginning that it was irrelevant for some kernels.

A simple email like happened should be fine, it's easy to drop a patch like I did. No need to micromanage the process for something that is so rare...

thanks,

greg k-h

#7 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 09:47 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · Luciano

Anyway, this is probably a very rare case.

Yes it is, this is the first time it has come up in over a decade of stable kernels that I can tell :)

Heheh, I had never seen something like this either and Johannes said the same thing. :P

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines

I was just nitpicking and thinking whether we could have prevented the (small) overhead of getting the patch in the stable queue, getting a comment and removing it from the queue, when we already knew from the beginning that it was irrelevant for some kernels.

A simple email like happened should be fine, it's easy to drop a patch like I did. No need to micromanage the process for something that is so rare...

Okay, sorry for the noise. :)

Signature · 2 lines
Cheers,
Luca.