On Fri September 17 2010 08:18:46 Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 03:36:52PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > Worth the churn? Is there any way to do this kind of patch that
> > > doesn't suck?
> >
> > Apparently not...
> >
> > Well, I hate to ask for a rebase -- but this doesn
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 03:36:52PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > Worth the churn? Is there any way to do this kind of patch that
> > doesn't suck?
>
> Apparently not...
>
> Well, I hate to ask for a rebase -- but this doesn't apply anymore!
> I would just fix it up, but that offending hunk
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 03:06:36PM -0400, Bob Copeland wrote:
> This change reorganizes the main ath5k file in order to re-group
> related functions and remove most of the forward declarations
> (from 61 down to 3). This is, unfortunately, a lot of churn, but
> there should be no functional change
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Bob Copeland wrote:
> This change reorganizes the main ath5k file in order to re-group
> related functions and remove most of the forward declarations
> (from 61 down to 3). This is, unfortunately, a lot of churn, but
> there should be no functional changes.
Forg
