On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:22 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:

Hi Willy,

quoted

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:06:23AM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:

quoted

quoted

So I'm pretty sure this patch is wrong for 2.6.32; it could be
backported but I don't think the change is necessary anyway.

true, but i think its better to initialize the count = 0 rather than
count = 1, though the older version driver checks for rate[i].idx>= 0
in ath_rc_tx_status. while the ath_tx_status has no such iteration in
the older driver code.

In practice, if the patch brings nothing and not even correctness, I'd
rather drop it than make us believe that some issue is fixed. However
if you think it does happen to fix a real issue in 2.6.32 (possibly
combined with some other missing patch), please tell me so and I will
happily undelete it.

we can drop it. also as there was no driver code checking for 
rate[i].count in the 2.6.32 driver. i am also not sure this fixes 
something in 2.6.32 but the patch itself is correct.

[...]

Please read and answer the *whole* of my earlier message.  The later
code in the rate_control_get_rate() function in 2.6.32 does appear to
depend on .count = 1, and there may be code elsewhere that does so too.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.