Yuri Lukin wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:49:26 -0700, Sam Leffler wrote >> This patch against HEAD imports the work that's been sitting in the >> sam_wifi p4 branch: >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~sam/sam_wifi-20070601.patch.gz >> >> To apply it do something like >> >> cd /usr/src >> gzcat sam_wifi-20070601.patch.gz | patch -p4 >> >> Expect one reject in sys/net80211/ieee80211_input.c.rej; it can be ignored. >> > > In addition to the reject cited above, I also got the following when patching > a snapshot from today: > > Hunk #91 failed at 5301. > 1 out of 109 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/dev/ath/if_ath.c.rej > > *************** > *** 4599,4605 **** > * o notify the rate control algorithm > */ > sc->sc_imask &= ~(HAL_INT_SWBA | HAL_INT_BMISS); > - ath_hal_intrset(ah, sc->sc_imask &~ HAL_INT_GLOBAL); > /* XXX can't use taskqueue_drain 'cuz we're holding sc_mtx */ > taskqueue_drain(sc->sc_tq, &sc->sc_rxtask); > taskqueue_drain(sc->sc_tq, &sc->sc_rxorntask); > --- 5301,5307 ---- > * o notify the rate control algorithm > */ > sc->sc_imask &= ~(HAL_INT_SWBA | HAL_INT_BMISS); > + ath_intrset(sc, sc->sc_imask &~ HAL_INT_GLOBAL); > /* XXX can't use taskqueue_drain 'cuz we're holding sc_mtx */ > taskqueue_drain(sc->sc_tq, &sc->sc_rxtask); > taskqueue_drain(sc->sc_tq, &sc->sc_rxorntask); > > > I see there was a change made to if_ath.c in HEAD yesterday related to > taskqueue_drain. Is it safe to ignore this reject as well? This is because the driver changed after I generated the patch. It's unlikely to be a worry so long as you don't enable polling (which you should not as it was an experiment that won't go into cvs). > > Thanks for the work - looking forward to vap support. > > Yuri > > >Received on Mon Jun 04 2007 - 01:53:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:11 UTC