From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:59771 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754950AbZDTL25 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:28:57 -0400 Subject: Re: rfkill rewrite bug From: Johannes Berg To: Alan Jenkins Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <49EC3E5B.8060403@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090420_112032_974132_A09D0446) References: <49DCA88E.6060400@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090408_153722_059382_FB44D658) <1239204090.16477.1.camel@johannes.local> <49DCDD2E.80705@tuffmail.co.uk> <49E38BBC.5010708@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090413_205524_915082_56358705) <1239741968.4205.1.camel@johannes.local> <49E98C86.2040308@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090418_101208_980691_83127E2F) <1240043283.5792.0.camel@johannes.local> <49E9A0C7.8040602@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090418_114338_695917_3CBF9024) <1240057470.4755.7.camel@johannes.local> <49EA10F3.3070309@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090418_194244_839181_896F358B) <1240077571.25100.3.camel@johannes.local> <49EC3366.7080206@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090420_103348_397116_B4EBC1A4) <1240217064.28218.0.camel@johannes.local> <49EC3E5B.8060403@tuffmail.co.uk> (sfid-20090420_112032_974132_A09D0446) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-HgRVjQLFmqdhiRJvxove" Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:28:21 +0200 Message-Id: <1240226901.28218.1.camel@johannes.local> (sfid-20090420_132901_241264_040BB6B9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-HgRVjQLFmqdhiRJvxove Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:20 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: > > Ok, thanks for the heads up. Do you think this will generate significan= t > > conflicts? > > =20 >=20 > I'm not quite sure what would be considered significant, but it's not > trivial. At a high level, I don't think the new behaviours conflict > with the new rfkill semantics :-). But the firmware bug workaround > can't be resolved completely mechanically. And the pci-hotplug patch > touches the rfkill error path. Ok, that helps, I think I'll just resolve the conflict when it hits linux-next. Might need to ask for your help then :) johannes --=-HgRVjQLFmqdhiRJvxove Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJJ7FxSAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYNwYQAIVc7fGyhor0P59Q3W2lFV8l 7WmlfIfFHMLG420RY9pwMfDx2RzlTzBMOHYJAueconQbHTtzjjp5k9Pf3COXZ2Qu GzLOUhqdP+BlTIDHLFgRQrRcWMnICpqlF55oxpw2kCBHvSIYTbgaOymmZHsvWbFN jPBF8/TdBfz5a11qNNAvdKpRGPUZhtJIfNEuKS/cRZuQ/1WmjiBDgFyE8e18dKz0 DyaKBD9oTuxaDuac5URhXuukvBcYcVkfAVbnBdF0gumWZME5g7dgB8JJ7A/uweU6 Xo3QSxwPw1jQ61YmPck1QdWqj6+gQ1W5nCBq21cigiOv8O5p2045GOkrm8ZnFB5b QJeVp1GiSyoMMKJF5NrrEU4vXbZJJt/DYf2yLLCLY1ULArluiDxYUF++xHhY5xpd Vdez4TE4re5yIzRUrCE+7zkwSZnpE5uj41hiYyyDmRtYDVtg3mf+2xOuvRh1W59i jpxLd7f9CJMJUWU4+RzcNvy2C9HJxg1iNywwHsGevAYVquUvZ0RXvxDPDiKyjWSl F5M6ZO5g0kEO0z5u1NXapJpsr6i/0wA5GDokB66GN40cXIRnvwAtrU4O9hwmyMy9 bAKvU//Vgrb9qbaxrJ/m3+adOEPcsB+a5Yc10o/BKu7GEGBYZkWk6qerqcyCgWd/ /jfL1GJINEpuYGWdIw5m =nsBM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-HgRVjQLFmqdhiRJvxove--