From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:57:48 -0700
Subject: [ath9k-devel] Disconnect problem (DMA failed to stop in 10 ms)
In-Reply-To: <1250631900.7534.44.camel@mj>
References: <74d457500908121816u57b86de6j8ea54f980cf7e75f@mail.gmail.com>
	<19075.41714.450997.244874@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
	<1250142042.2352.26.camel@ct>
	<200908182346.29416.kunal.gangakhedkar@gmail.com>
	<1250629490.7534.20.camel@mj>
	<43e72e890908181407w2d658392w1f61b7f37beb04d1@mail.gmail.com>
	<1250630158.7534.29.camel@mj>
	<43e72e890908181424l770b3356ie990e9cadcb39877@mail.gmail.com>
	<1250631900.7534.44.camel@mj>
Message-ID: <20090818215748.GJ20633@mosca>
List-Id: <ath9k-devel.lists.ath9k.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 02:45:00PM -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 14:24 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> > > Anyway, why is it better for bisecting?
> >
> > Because to help developers not have to do:
> >
> > git branch -m poo
> > git checkout -b master origin/master
> > # Then apply patches manually
> >
> > Instead of the better rebasing:
> >
> > git branch -m save-my-stuff
> > git checkout -b master origin/master
> > git checkout save-my-stuff
> > git rebase master
> 
> I use STGit, so perhaps I miss all that fun.  I have never had any
> trouble tracking wireless-testing while keeping my patches.

Oh this was a long time ago, pre ath5k I think.

> > john reverts his patches on wireless-testing before rebasing to Linus'
> > tree. There may be some other added benefit other than helping us
> > rebase cleanly, not sure. But I do remember before that I never was
> > able to rebase my patches, and now rebasing works quite nicely.
> 
> You mean it's better to track wireless-next-2.6 for those of us trying
> to stay on top of the wireless development?

No, not at all, I meant wireless-next-2.6 is best for bisecting.

wireless-testing is indeed the place to look at for development.

> I must have missed the
> memo.

I don't think we ever really publized this much, because technically
the reverting won't happen unless John rebases and typically between
rebases to a next RC kernel you *could* technically bisect an issue.
But not all the times.

> Indeed, wireless-next-2.6 has a couple of commits that
> wireless-testing doesn't have yet.
> 
> I agree that having to bisect through reverts is not fun, and it takes
> one or two extra iterations.

Right, which is why I wanted to mention it, will extend the info on
the wiki on the development section once John ACKs/NACKs this.

  Luis