On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Bruno Randolf <b...@einfach.org> wrote: > 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. :)
Alright lets skip stable for this. Luis _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
