From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46683 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751571AbXEJObq (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 10:31:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Please pull 'master' branch of libertas (for 2.6.22) From: Dan Williams To: "John W. Linville" Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070510013523.GA4544@tuxdriver.com> References: <1178745375.9590.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070510013523.GA4544@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:35:13 -0400 Message-Id: <1178807713.23307.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 21:35 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 05:16:14PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > > This is latest libertas git and should be pushed to 2.6.22. It takes > > care of a few of Christoph's objections, including ioctl removal, > > version.h removal, and debug define cleanups. > > > > git://git.infradead.org/libertas-2.6.git > > Dan, > > There is a problem...the libertas-2.6 tree doesn't have a "clean" > history. It appears to have the entire development history of the > libertas project. We need something more concise and "sanitized" > for pushing upstream. Yeah; that sucks. I've pulled wireless-2.6 and I'm adding cleanup/review patches now. What I may not be able to do, depending on time, is fix the warnings and sparse stuff Randy brought up. Dan > We do not really want the patches for new development, at least not > for 2.6.22. Could you help identify which patches in the history > correspond to review fixes? > > I can generate a single diff, but it is huge ("34 files changed, 3069 > insertions(+), 5643 deletions(-)") and it isn't clear to me that it > is only cleanups. Perhaps you could split this up into a few separate > patches? Especially those patches specific to review comments? > > I'm sorry...I know this is a PITA. I appreciate your effort and > cooperation. > > John