* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2007 09:11:02 Larry Finger wrote:
> > >
> > > or could tsc being marked as unstable have anything to do with the
> > > speed of network transfers?
> >
> > Absolutely not.
>
> Well, if the clocksource of the machine is unsta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Larry, thanks for being so patient so far. Tomorrow I plan to take my
> laptop to somewhere with coffee and a wireless network. For now
> though, can you tell me if these messages could be related:
> PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 7 of bridge :00:05.0
> PCI: Can
Larry, thanks for being so patient so far. Tomorrow I plan to take my
laptop to somewhere with coffee and a wireless network. For now
though, can you tell me if these messages could be related:
PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 7 of bridge :00:05.0
PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 8 of b
On Dec 17, 2007 8:16 PM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I hope that you have now convinced yourself that you should be using b43 and
> not messing around
> forcing b43legacy to use a device for which it was not intended.
>
I was convinced the moment I realized it worked exactly the s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't know what happened before, but after a reboot, I can't repeat
> the 200 kB/s speed. It's back down to 40 kB/s, just like originally. I
> didn't move the laptop, or the ap, the only thing I can think of that
> might have changed is the noise level. FWIW, link qu
On Dec 17, 2007 6:18 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007 00:12:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires" b43, but I did say that
> > the device uses the b43 driver.
>
> Requires means requires.
>
Ok, noted.
> > Sorry
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 00:12:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:45 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ehm, excuse me.
> > What are you doing exactly? In this thread you told me you have
> > a device which requires b43:
> >
>
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean b
On Dec 17, 2007 5:45 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ehm, excuse me.
> What are you doing exactly? In this thread you told me you have
> a device which requires b43:
>
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires" b43, but I did say that
the device uses the b43 driver.
> > I do
On Monday 17 December 2007 23:04:37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
> > to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
> > earlier, there are five machines
On Dec 17, 2007 5:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
> to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
> earlier, there are five machines connecting to this ap, and I just
> realized one of them has a ralin
If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
earlier, there are five machines connecting to this ap, and I just
realized one of them has a ralink card that uses the rt2x00 driver,
which I believe is mac802
On Dec 17, 2007 4:49 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are you working with wireless-2.6's #everything branch?
I've been working with vanilla wireless-2.6, but I've also tried the
everything branch as well as other trees. Just for good measure, I
just rebuilt the everything branch
On Monday 17 December 2007 08:17:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 1:52 AM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > One major difference between bcm43xx-SoftMAC and b43-mac80211 is that the
> > former always used a fixed
> > rate; whereas mac80211 tries to adjust the bit rate a
On Dec 17, 2007 1:52 AM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One major difference between bcm43xx-SoftMAC and b43-mac80211 is that the
> former always used a fixed
> rate; whereas mac80211 tries to adjust the bit rate according to the
> transmission conditions.
> Perhaps it isn't working
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 7:38 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll build latest wireless git without ipv6 late tonight.
>
> Ok, built and tested, and it's actually faster! Although still not as
> fast as bcm43xx or softmac or whatever the problem is, I was getting a
> steady 2
On Dec 15, 2007 7:38 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll build latest wireless git without ipv6 late tonight.
Ok, built and tested, and it's actually faster! Although still not as
fast as bcm43xx or softmac or whatever the problem is, I was getting a
steady 200 kB/s (as opposed to 500 kB/s fo
> > On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer"
> > > > cards that
> > > > work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to suppo
On Sunday, 16 of December 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer"
> > > cards that
> > > work better with v3
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards
> > that
> > work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
Impossible
On Sunday 16 December 2007 10:22:43 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It's not that simple. For example, regression testing will be a
> > > major PITA if one needs to switch back and forth from the new driver
> > > to the old one in the process.
> >
On Sunday 16 December 2007 03:30:16 Larry Finger wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards
> >> that
> >> work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed t
* John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not that simple. For example, regression testing will be a
> > major PITA if one needs to switch back and forth from the new driver
> > to the old one in the process.
>
> Not really true -- a single system can easily have firmware install
On Sonntag, 16. Dezember 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> > > > Either distributions have to install it
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
And I suspect that you are wrong until you show me one. :
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards
> that
> work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
And I suspect that you are wrong until you show me one. :)
--
Greetings Mi
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > > Either distributions have to install it automatically or people simply
> > > have
> > > to read one or t
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > > > > This user did get the following messages
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Either distributions have to install it automatically or people simply have
> > to read one or two lines of documentation. That's just what I wanted to
> > say.
>
> It'
On Dec 15, 2007 2:18 AM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It will take a while to finish looking over those logs, but are you using
> ipv6? If not, please
> blacklist the ipv6 module to prevent it from loading - add the line
> 'blacklist ipv6' to file
> /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist. In so
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > > >
> > > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 11:37 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll attach these logs since I can't read much into them.
I should do what I say...
It will take a while to finish looking over those logs, but are you using ipv6? If not, please
blacklist the ipv6 module to pre
On Dec 14, 2007 9:27 PM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suspect that mac80211 is doing something that your router does not like. Do
> you have any chance to
> capture the traffic between your computer and the router by using a second
> wireless computer running
> kismet or wireshar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could this be the reason my BCM94311MCG rev 1 receives such terrible
performance with b43 but works well with bcm43xx? The device is
802.11b/g but my router is 802.11b. I filed a report on this issue
here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=413291
No. On my BC
On Dec 14, 2007 7:58 PM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Actually, can you explain why, from the technical point of view, the
> > version 4
> > firware is better than version 3, please?
>
> I will be very interested in Michael's answer to this question; h
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 18:59:10 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion this all is the work of the distributions and not the
> > > work of the kernel developers. Distributions have
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Actually, can you explain why, from the technical point of view, the version 4
firware is better than version 3, please?
I will be very interested in Michael's answer to this question; however, my experience is that it
doesn't make much difference if your device is su
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > >
> > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> > >"or load failed.\n", path);
> >
> > So the qu
On Dec 14, 2007 12:13 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ray, I _do_ want to understand what is going on in your machine.
> I _have_ to understand it. But I currently do not understand how the
> quoted patch could fix modprobe of b43 or rfkill. I'd simply call that
> impossible.
Then
On Friday 14 December 2007 20:55:43 Ray Lee wrote:
> Oh. My. God.
>
> Michael. I have a degree in Physics. I placed sixth in the world
> finals of the ACM Collegiate programming contest in 1999, Cal Poly
> Team Gold. ( http://icpc.baylor.edu/past/icpc99/Finals/Tour/Win/Win.html
> , I'm the guy all
On Dec 14, 2007 11:38 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 20:25:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> > > I'm sorry. The patch that _you_ quoted fixes a blinking LED
> > > and nothing else.
> >
> > Well, you're wrong. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. See below.
> >
> > > I
On Friday 14 December 2007 20:25:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> > I'm sorry. The patch that _you_ quoted fixes a blinking LED
> > and nothing else.
>
> Well, you're wrong. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. See below.
>
> > It does _not_ fix loading of rfkill or b43 in any way.
> > It does, however, fix
On Dec 14, 2007 11:05 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 19:45:02 Ray Lee wrote:
> > > > One problem related to b43 source code, patch exists, has yet to be
> > > > merged upstream.
> > >
> > > Yeah. A problem preventing a LED from blinking.
> > > That's a re
On Friday 14 December 2007 19:45:02 Ray Lee wrote:
> > > One problem related to b43 source code, patch exists, has yet to be
> > > merged upstream.
> >
> > Yeah. A problem preventing a LED from blinking.
> > That's a real regression Come on. Stop that bullshit.
>
> I'm going to say this one la
On Dec 14, 2007 10:11 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now I'm going to go off, sit in the sun, sip some coffee, and think
> > happy thoughts of kittens playing with yarn for a while.
>
> ok, and given the time-shift and apparent season-shift i
I've run out of time to donate to the kernel today, so I'll keep this short.
On Dec 14, 2007 10:22 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you have a PCI device probing works as follows:
> > > The PCI table is in ssb. So as soon as your kernel detects the PCI device
> > > it will lo
On Friday 14 December 2007 18:59:10 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this all is the work of the distributions and not the
> > work of the kernel developers. Distributions have to make sure that
> > everything works after a kernel update. [.
On Friday 14 December 2007 19:01:51 Ray Lee wrote:
> No, I don't have module autoloading disabled. modprobe-ing b43
> automatically loads ssb. Neither, however, will load rfkill or
> rfkill-input. And if they aren't loaded, then b43/ssb are *completely*
> silent during load. Nothing to dmesg at all
* Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now I'm going to go off, sit in the sun, sip some coffee, and think
> happy thoughts of kittens playing with yarn for a while.
ok, and given the time-shift and apparent season-shift i'll sit in the
evening, watch the snowfall and think happy thoughts of k
On Dec 14, 2007 8:49 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 17:06:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> > Hi all. Perhaps I can inject some facts into this?
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2007 5:08 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > This user did get the following message
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion this all is the work of the distributions and not the
> work of the kernel developers. Distributions have to make sure that
> everything works after a kernel update. [...]
actually, not. The the task of kernel developers is to KEEP OL
On Dec 14, 2007 8:59 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if you want to compile your own kernel? Well, then you are on
> your own anyway. You have to track kernel changes anyway.
I'm trying to help you test your code before it goes out to the
unsuspecting masses. Do you think I do
On Friday 14 December 2007 17:45:52 Ray Lee wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 8:27 AM, Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2007 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Agreed. As a b43legacy maintainer, I'd be happy to know if Ingo
> > > suggests other ways to smooth out the transition. I h
On Friday 14 December 2007 17:06:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> Hi all. Perhaps I can inject some facts into this?
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 5:08 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > > >
> > > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found
On Dec 14, 2007 8:27 AM, Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Agreed. As a b43legacy maintainer, I'd be happy to know if Ingo
> > suggests other ways to smooth out the transition. I haven't read
> > proposals yet.
>
> This isn't rocket scienc
On Dec 14, 2007 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed. As a b43legacy maintainer, I'd be happy to know if Ingo
> suggests other ways to smooth out the transition. I haven't read
> proposals yet.
This isn't rocket science guys. Put a file in somewhere in your tree
called ReleaseAnnouncement
Hi all. Perhaps I can inject some facts into this?
On Dec 14, 2007 5:08 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > >
> > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> > >"or load failed.\n", path);
> > > b43err(wl, "Yo
"John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:56:24AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh come on. b43 is more than a year old now. How long should we wait?
> Two or three? Forever?
possibly forever, if you dont get obvious
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:56:24AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh come on. b43 is more than a year old now. How long should we wait?
> > Two or three? Forever?
>
> possibly forever, if you dont get obvious regressions like "my wlan does
> not w
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:53:27 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> >
> > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> >"or load failed.\n", path);
> > b43err(wl, "You must go to "
> >
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> >
> > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> >"or load failed.\n", path);
>
> So the question seems to be why b43 needs version 4, when b43legacy and
> bcm
fre, 14 12 2007 kl. 13:31 +0100, skrev Michael Buesch:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 13:16:17 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > The testers who did nothing but reported that the new driver did not
> > > > work on their hardware.
> > >
> > > Which
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
>
> b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
>"or load failed.\n", path);
> b43err(wl, "You must go to "
>"http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/b43#devicefirmware "
>
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:16:17 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The testers who did nothing but reported that the new driver did not
> > > work on their hardware.
> >
> > Which testers?
>
> right in this thread Ray Lee is reporting:
>
> | | Diggi
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The testers who did nothing but reported that the new driver did not
> > work on their hardware.
>
> Which testers?
right in this thread Ray Lee is reporting:
| | Digging a little farther into it, it looks like b43 is barfing
| | partway throug
On Friday 14 December 2007 12:15:34 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So you volunteer to maintain bcm43xx? Fine. Thanks a lot.
>
> it's sad that you are trying to force testers to upgrade to your new
> driver by threatening to unsupport the old driver.
I dropped maintainance for bcm43xx over a year ago.
S
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 02:12:25 Ray Lee wrote:
> > Digging a little farther into it, it looks like b43 is barfing partway
> > through init as the firmware file it's looking for has changed names.
> > Perhaps that's the issue. I'll take a longer lo
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (eth0 is ethernet, eth1 doesn't exist -- usually it's the wireless.)
> >
> > `ifconfig` doesn't see eth1 or wlan0_rename.
> >
> > What else might I be doing wrong?
>
> I don't know. Try ifconfig -a Or tell udev to not crap up your device
> names
On Friday 14 December 2007 02:12:25 Ray Lee wrote:
> Digging a little farther into it, it looks like b43 is barfing partway
> through init as the firmware file it's looking for has changed names.
> Perhaps that's the issue. I'll take a longer look at this all
> tomorrow.
http://www.linuxwireless.o
On Friday 14 December 2007 01:55:50 Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 01:43 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Oh come on. b43 is more than a year old now. How long should we wait?
> > Two or three? Forever?
> >
>
> Any pointers to the advantages of b43?
http://www.linuxwireless.org/e
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 01:05:00 Ray Lee wrote:
Okay, I had to modprobe rfkill-input and rfkill by hand, didn't
realize that. Hopefully that'll be automatic soon. Regardless, upon
doing so, and loading ssb and b43, it sees my card, but is still not
fully functional. iwco
On Dec 13, 2007 4:43 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 01:05:00 Ray Lee wrote:
> > Okay, I had to modprobe rfkill-input and rfkill by hand, didn't
> > realize that. Hopefully that'll be automatic soon. Regardless, upon
> > doing so, and loading ssb and b43,
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 01:43 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Oh come on. b43 is more than a year old now. How long should we wait?
> Two or three? Forever?
>
Any pointers to the advantages of b43?
Harvey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a m
On Friday 14 December 2007 01:05:00 Ray Lee wrote:
> Okay, I had to modprobe rfkill-input and rfkill by hand, didn't
> realize that. Hopefully that'll be automatic soon. Regardless, upon
> doing so, and loading ssb and b43, it sees my card, but is still not
> fully functional. iwconfig sees:
>
> l
On Dec 13, 2007 5:45 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2007 02:17:16 Ray Lee wrote:
> > Uhm, hijacking the thread a bit here, but which driver is supposed to
> > be supporting my 4309? Neither b43 nor b43legacy found my wireless,
> > and I'm not seeing its PCI
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:11:32PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2007 11:13:27 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > This driver is scheduled for removal, so I'd not touch it anymore to
> > > > avoid the possibility to introduc
On Thursday 13 December 2007 02:17:16 Ray Lee wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 4:48 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This driver is scheduled for removal, so I'd not touch it anymore
> > to avoid the possibility to introduce a lastminute regression.
> > The new drivers (b43 and b43legacy)
On Thursday 13 December 2007 11:13:27 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This driver is scheduled for removal, so I'd not touch it anymore to
> > > avoid the possibility to introduce a lastminute regression. The new
> > > drivers (b43 and b43legacy) have t
* Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This driver is scheduled for removal, so I'd not touch it anymore to
> > avoid the possibility to introduce a lastminute regression. The new
> > drivers (b43 and b43legacy) have this fixed (in a different way by
> > completely removing it).
>
> W
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 01:48 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 December 2007 09:00:03 Daniel Walker wrote:
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_debugfs.c | 30
> > -
> > 1 file changed
On Dec 12, 2007 4:48 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This driver is scheduled for removal, so I'd not touch it anymore
> to avoid the possibility to introduce a lastminute regression.
> The new drivers (b43 and b43legacy) have this fixed (in a different
> way by completely removing
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 09:00:03 Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> Signed-Off-By: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_debugfs.c | 30
> -
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.23/drivers/net/
Signed-Off-By: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_debugfs.c | 30 -
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.23/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_debugfs.c
82 matches
Mail list logo
