From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:37930 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758997Ab0JFPaF (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 11:30:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 11:27:16 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Christian Jaeger Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Christian Lamparter Subject: Re: Why were patches reverted on 2010-09-21? (carl9170 and others) Message-ID: <20101006152716.GF2472@tuxdriver.com> References: <20101006132301.GA2472@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:07:12AM -0400, Christian Jaeger wrote: > Thanks for your explantion. > > My patches on top of the stable kernel don't build (they depend a > 'cipher' member on ‘struct ieee80211_key_conf’, and I guess there may > be more). If I want to reach my goal of trying carl9170 with a stable > kernel, should I still proceed that route, i.e. finding the patches > that carl* depends on, or trying to change the carl* code to not > require them, or is there a better idea? I'd like to avoid running > wireless-testing as is if possible (for fear of stability and security > issues on this world-facing, supposedly stable router of mine). You might try the compat-wireless stuff on top of whatever kernel you are using. Hth! John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.