On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:01:59AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > For a future patch, "sizeof(mask_m)" or even just:
> >
> > u8 mask_m[123] = {0};
> >
> > ... would be better here. I looked at this bit and thought, no way is
> > "123" actually correct. Lo and behold, that is actually the
Am 15.04.2016 um 22:59 schrieb Bob Copeland:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:37:44PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> by moving common code to ar5008_hw_cmn_spur_mitigate i forgot to move
>> mask_m & mask_p initialisation. This coused a performance regression
>> on ar9281.
>>
>> Fixes: f911085ffa88
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:37:44PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> by moving common code to ar5008_hw_cmn_spur_mitigate i forgot to move
> mask_m & mask_p initialisation. This coused a performance regression
> on ar9281.
>
> Fixes: f911085ffa88 ("ath9k: split ar5008_hw_spur_mitigate and reuse
Am 13.04.2016 um 11:45 schrieb Kalle Valo:
> Kalle Valo writes:
>
>> Oleksij Rempel writes:
>>
>>> by moving common code to ar5008_hw_cmn_spur_mitigate i forgot to move
>>> mask_m & mask_p initialisation. This coused a performance regression
>>> on
Kalle Valo writes:
> Oleksij Rempel writes:
>
>> by moving common code to ar5008_hw_cmn_spur_mitigate i forgot to move
>> mask_m & mask_p initialisation. This coused a performance regression
>> on ar9281.
>>
>> Fixes: f911085ffa88 ("ath9k: split
Oleksij Rempel writes:
> by moving common code to ar5008_hw_cmn_spur_mitigate i forgot to move
> mask_m & mask_p initialisation. This coused a performance regression
> on ar9281.
>
> Fixes: f911085ffa88 ("ath9k: split ar5008_hw_spur_mitigate and reuse common
> code in
by moving common code to ar5008_hw_cmn_spur_mitigate i forgot to move
mask_m & mask_p initialisation. This coused a performance regression
on ar9281.
Fixes: f911085ffa88 ("ath9k: split ar5008_hw_spur_mitigate and reuse common
code in ar9002_hw_spur_mitigate.")
Reported-by: Gustav Frederiksen