diff mbox series

[1/9] staging: wilc1000: revert fix related to vif index

Message ID 1549519927-2651-2-git-send-email-ajay.kathat@microchip.com (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable
Delegated to: Kalle Valo
Headers show
Series staging: wilc1000: fixes & changes for mainline review comments | expand

Commit Message

Ajay Singh Feb. 7, 2019, 7:22 a.m. UTC 
From: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@microchip.com>

This patch reverts 0e490657c721 ("staging: wilc1000: Fix problem with
wrong vif index") commit.

The issue was not completely fixed with the above commit.
After 'for' loop completion, '->idx' value is correct but '->vif_num'
still contains incorrect interface count.

Fixes: 0e490657c721 ("staging: wilc1000: Fix problem with wrong vif index")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.12
Signed-off-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Dan Carpenter Feb. 7, 2019, 8:12 a.m. UTC | #1 
This patch was very confusing to review...

From a process perspective, you really should fold patches 1 and 2
together.  Otherwise we're re-introducing a bug.

regards,
dan carpenter
Ajay Singh Feb. 7, 2019, 9:39 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Dan,

On 2/7/2019 1:42 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This patch was very confusing to review...

Apologies for the confusion.

> From a process perspective, you really should fold patches 1 and 2
> together.  Otherwise we're re-introducing a bug.

Patch 1 and Patch 2 both are required if commit 0e490657c721 ("staging:
wilc1000: Fix problem with wrong vif index") is applied else Patch 2 is
enough for complete fix. For the above reason, I have divided the fixes
into 2 patches.
Please suggest, if I should go ahead and submit this in a single patch.
Should I put 2 'Fixes:' tag in that merge commit or only 0e490657c721
commit is enough.

Regards,
Ajay
Dan Carpenter Feb. 7, 2019, 10:02 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:39:54AM +0000, Ajay.Kathat@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On 2/7/2019 1:42 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > This patch was very confusing to review...
> 
> Apologies for the confusion.
> 
> > From a process perspective, you really should fold patches 1 and 2
> > together.  Otherwise we're re-introducing a bug.
> 
> Patch 1 and Patch 2 both are required if commit 0e490657c721 ("staging:
> wilc1000: Fix problem with wrong vif index") is applied else Patch 2 is
> enough for complete fix. For the above reason, I have divided the fixes
> into 2 patches.
> Please suggest, if I should go ahead and submit this in a single patch.
> Should I put 2 'Fixes:' tag in that merge commit or only 0e490657c721
> commit is enough.
> 

I always just go with the oldest one.  Another option is to include
both.

regards,
dan carpenter
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
index f096f9e..648b658 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
@@ -1017,12 +1017,11 @@  int wilc_netdev_init(struct wilc **wilc, struct device *dev, int io_type,
 			strcpy(ndev->name, "p2p%d");
 			vif->ifc_id = 0;
 		}
+		vif->idx = wl->vif_num;
 		vif->wilc = *wilc;
 		vif->ndev = ndev;
 		wl->vif[i] = vif;
 		wl->vif_num = i;
-		vif->idx = wl->vif_num;
-
 		ndev->netdev_ops = &wilc_netdev_ops;
 
 		wdev = wilc_create_wiphy(ndev, dev);