From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:3958 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753242Ab0KJSv0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:51:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] update for 2.6.37 From: "Guy, Wey-Yi" To: "John W. Linville" Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" In-Reply-To: <20101110181609.GB2714@tuxdriver.com> References: <1289411810-23093-1-git-send-email-wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com> <20101110181609.GB2714@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:47:16 -0800 Message-ID: <1289414836.12056.88.camel@wwguy-huron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi John, On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 10:16 -0800, John W. Linville wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 09:56:34AM -0800, Wey-Yi Guy wrote: > > We make the correction for the latest PCI ID used for multiple NICs > > We also fix the low tpt problem cause by mac80211 changes > > Number of code clean up to separate new agn devices from legacy devices > > > > Johannes Berg (5): > > iwlagn: fix non-5000+ build > > iwlagn: fix needed chains calculation > > iwlagn: fix RXON issues > > iwlagn: re-enable calibration > > iwlagn: fix RXON HT > > > > Shanyu Zhao (2): > > iwlwifi: seperate disconnected antenna function > > iwlwifi: disable disconnected antenna for advanced bt coex > > > > Wey-Yi Guy (8): > > iwlagn: update PCI ID for 6000g2b series devices > > iwlagn: update PCI ID for 6000g2a series devices > > iwlagn: update PCI ID for 100 series devices > > iwlwifi: Legacy isr only used by legacy devices > > iwlwifi: put all the isr related function under ops > > iwlwifi: legacy tx_cmd_protection function > > iwlwifi: resending QoS command when HT changes > > iwlagn: enabel shadow register > > > > Winkler, Tomas (1): > > iwlwlifi: update rx write pointer w/o request mac access in the CAM > > mode > > Is this really intended for 2.6.37? Some of these might be > appropriate, although at first glance even some of the fixes may be > for code in -next. > > Fixes only for 2.6.37 -- it has been that way for weeks. Perhaps you > actually intended this for 2.6.38? > Oops, it is for 2.6.38, I forgot to change the "Subject", sorry. Wey