On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:44:36PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:38:47PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> > > > increased
> > > > i
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:38:47PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> > > increased
> > > if you could prepare a patch...
>
> Applied to upstream-fixes branch of liber
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> > increased
> > if you could prepare a patch...
Applied to upstream-fixes branch of libertas-2.6 which is destined for
2.6.22; I hope you don't mind that I just ad
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:08:44PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400
> > "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It does not make sense to me to rip this out purely for aesthetic
>
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 23:31 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:22:35PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > And that's what I did in the last pull you got from John; all pointless
> > and duplicated ioctls were removed. The only ones left are mesh
> > tweakables, an LED GPIO co
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 22:03 +0200, Holger Schurig wrote:
> > Independent of any nl80211 status the private libertas ioctls have to
> > go. Not only don't we want private ioctls for mesh networking but
> > rather have it as driver-independent interface, but the actual
> > libertas interface is the
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:22:35PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> And that's what I did in the last pull you got from John; all pointless
> and duplicated ioctls were removed. The only ones left are mesh
> tweakables, an LED GPIO control ioctl, and a regulatory region/domain
> thing. I agree the in
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 14:48 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> >>> increased
> >>> if you could prepare a patch...
> >> Here we go:
> >
> > I don't min
> Independent of any nl80211 status the private libertas ioctls have to
> go. Not only don't we want private ioctls for mesh networking but
> rather have it as driver-independent interface, but the actual
> libertas interface is the worst possible choice.
I have been told that the Libertas mesh f
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400
> "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It does not make sense to me to rip this out purely for aesthetic
> > reasons.
>
> Aesthetics are good, but that's not the main issue.
>
> Wha
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400
"John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It does not make sense to me to rip this out purely for aesthetic
> reasons.
Aesthetics are good, but that's not the main issue.
What is most worrying is that there appears to be a risk that these
newly-added inte
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:23:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> > > increased
> > > if you could prepare a patch...
> >
> > Here we go:
FWIW, I do appreciate the
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased
if you could prepare a patch...
Here we go:
I don't mind ripping them out, but it makes sense only if people are
actually signed up to implementi
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> > increased
> > if you could prepare a patch...
>
> Here we go:
I don't mind ripping them out, but it makes sense only if people are
actually signed up to implementing thi
> I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased
> if you could prepare a patch...
Here we go:
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/Makefile
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/liberta
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:09:01 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Independent of any nl80211 status the private libertas ioctls have to
> go. Not only don't we want private ioctls for mesh networking but rather
> have it as driver-independent interface, but the actual libertas
Independent of any nl80211 status the private libertas ioctls have to
go. Not only don't we want private ioctls for mesh networking but rather
have it as driver-independent interface, but the actual libertas interface
is the worst possible choice. It uses the absolutely broken iwpriv interface
in
17 matches
Mail list logo
