From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:39858 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751655Ab0G0QpL (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:45:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:31:41 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-wireless Subject: Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing Message-ID: <20100727163141.GC31694@tuxdriver.com> References: <20100727140139.GA31694@tuxdriver.com> <20100727160434.GB31694@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:21:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John W. Linville > wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:56:54AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John W. Linville > >> wrote: > >> > As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 > >> > instead? > >> > >> Oh OK, didn't realize that was bisectable, thanks. Also was unsure if > >> I'd get other subsystems's -next components. Is wireless-next.git just > >> the -next bits for 802.11 or does it also suck up net-next? > > > > Usually just the wireless bits, but I did just pull the bluetooth stuff > > (which included some net-next stuff). > > Oh neat. OK so which net-next.git release was wireless-next.git based > on and what net-next.git release was bluetooth-next.git based on? Did > it bump your next-next.git or do you routinely pull next-next.git into > your own wireless-next.git? I don't have those exact commit IDs. How badly do you need them? I don't normally pull net-next into wireless-next, but this release not doing that has been a source of pain due to the __packed patch in net-next and the addition of __attribute__ ((packed)) in various places in wireless-next. Since Marcel had already based on a net-next that had that patch and since it is close to the end of the release I decided it would be acceptable to pull it this time. I have been considering making regular net-next pulls a standard practice. That would make my life easier, but would add some non-wireless instability into wireless-testing (which pulls from wireless-next). I don't think that would be a big problem _most_ of the time, but I'm sure there would be some occasional pain from doing that. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.