On Tuesday 09 March 2010 09:47:09 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Bruno Randolf <b...@einfach.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 March 2010 01:24:48 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> >> Thanks Bruno, are these stable fixes? > >> > > >> > hi luis! > >> > > >> > i think so. the behaviour before was completely broken, now it's > >> > better. > >> > > >> > but i'm not sure about that whole Cc: sta...@kernel.org thing... > >> > (sorry i've been away for a while)... i read > >> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt but still not sure if that > >> > applies for this patch. > >> > >> Just add: > >> > >> Cc: sta...@kernel.org > >> > >> below your Singed-off-by on the commit log entry. That list will get > >> spammed once the patch is merged on Linus' tree. > > > > i understand that. > > > > the question is more if my patch justifies bothering 'stable' or not. > > > > as i said, in my point of view ath5k has several problems right now > > (performace and stability), and i guess nobody will be using it seriously > > in actual production use (does anyone?). so i think it does not really > > matter if this or any of my other patches go into stable sooner or > > later. does it? > > 2.6.32 will be used by a lot of "enterprise" releases, I'd prefer > connection stability fixes do indeed go in for 2.6.32 for ath5k, this > seems like one. I'll let John be the judge.
sure, as i said, i don't mind. :) bruno _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
