From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s131.mittwaldmedien.de ([62.216.178.31]:16488 "EHLO s131.mittwaldmedien.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750898AbXLDUea convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:34:30 -0500 From: Holger Schurig To: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH] libertas: implement new scanning logic Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:34:52 +0100 References: <200711290927.15915.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <1196787130.4772.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1196787130.4772.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: "John W. Linville" , libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <200712042134.53084.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> (sfid-20071204_203435_673808_B8B446B3) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > So I tested this one, not the one from libertas-dev (which was posted > a day earlier). And this one seems fine. Ack for commit to > libertas-2.6. Hmm, for the patch you just "acked" inofficially is already older. I know at least two changes that I made since then: * add a comment to the section where I change the basic rates by setting the high bit (your idea) * adapt to the patch "ibertas: separate mesh connectivity from that of the main interface" that appeared in wireless-2.6/everything Please note that my current patch doesn't apply anymore to wireless-2.6/everything (a.k.a wl26e). It might still apply to libertas-2.6, because this tree lacked (four hours ago) at least 4 patches that are in wl26e. >>From the 40 mails about git, commits, patches, rebases etc I was not able to draw a real conclusion. I'm tending towards basing my patches against wl26e, so that John, Jeff etc can push the patches easily up. And if a patch still applies, I can commit/push the patch once you acked them. If the patch doesn't apply there, I'll post about this face in libertas-dev. I hope that helps all sides the most. > Would you like me to confirm on SDIO? Yes, please. I think the patch is hardware agnistic, but you can never know because SDIO firmware != CF firmware != USB firmware.