On Tuesday 09 March 2010 12:32:33 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Bob Copeland <m...@bobcopeland.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Bruno Randolf <b...@einfach.org> wrote: > >>>> > 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?). > > > > Yes, people do use ath5k in production. Some large companies. > > > >>>> 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 > >>> > >>> sure, as i said, i don't mind. :) > >> > >> Alright lets skip stable for this. > > > > Wow this whole line of conversation is confusing :) > > Hehe. sorry well I was talking to Bruno about the "stable" > qualifications of this fix, and it doesn't fix an oops or serious bug, > but it certainly can improve performance but I haven't myself seen > numbers and would hate to justify just about pushing anything > upstream. > > > If this fixes a calibration bug it needs to go to stable. > > Perhaps a little more elaboration on the commit log on the impact and > how this helps and how much would help.
ok. to stop the confusion, i'll add cc: stable. bruno _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
