From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:55555 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752237AbXKFOX5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:23:57 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] move wlan_*_association_work from header to c file From: Dan Williams To: Holger Schurig Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org In-Reply-To: <200711061351.14673.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> References: <200710111151.06989.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <200710261343.51684.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <20071106011607.GA23747@tuxdriver.com> <200711061351.14673.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:20:56 -0500 Message-Id: <1194358856.12229.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> (sfid-20071106_142400_442822_9EA7741A) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 13:51 +0100, Holger Schurig wrote: > > The 2nd patch "libertas: move to uniform lbs_/LBS_ namespace" > > breaks the compile of if_sdio.c, so I had to drop it. I > > dropped "libertas: clean up association debug messages" as > > well. > > I didn't see an if_sdio.c in my tree when I made the patch. > > And I wont make a third patch. It's quite discouraging to send > things which don't get applied (for no known reasons) for more > than a week. And during that time they bitrot. Would the patch > have been applied timely, it would have worked in the first > place. This is the way things work. The patch clearly was not material for 2.6.24 given the timing. Therefore, it's 2.6.25. Therefore, since if_sdio.c was ready to go in _August_, it hit 2.6.24, but you didn't have it because your patch was based on 2.6.23, not 2.6.24-rc1. That's distributed development. If you want a feature, you have to keep coming back until it gets where you need to go, if you want the benefits of distributed development. > Also, changing all things wlan_XXX in libertas_XXX is soooo easy. > However, I won't do it. The one who originally asked for the > cleanup patch should do the work and have the patience to get > the patch through, I have real work to do. In any case, thanks for the work. I'll see if I can pick it up. Dan