From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Please pull upstream-fixes branch of wireless-2.6 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:00:10 -0400 Message-ID: <44474D9A.3000301@garzik.org> References: <20060420011232.GA9268@tuxdriver.com> <200604201051.03881.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "John W. Linville" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:29318 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbWDTJAP (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:00:15 -0400 To: Michael Buesch In-Reply-To: <200604201051.03881.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 20 April 2006 03:12, John W. Linville wrote: >> bcm43xx: fix dyn tssi2dbm memleak >> bcm43xx: fix pctl slowclock limit calculation >> bcm43xx: sysfs code cleanup > > These are already in -mm and on their way into linus's tree. > Is it possible to cause problems? > If not, fine. If yes, we need some clearly defined rules where > to put patches and a clearly defined statement of how often > patches are pushed upstream. Ideally, patches should be sent to John, who will send me -> Linus. If they are bug fixes, the turnaround can be same once I get them from John (and Linus is taking patches). That's always been the standard route: wireless patches -> wireless maintainer. Jeff