From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f190.google.com ([209.85.223.190]:54044 "EHLO mail-iw0-f190.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756471AbZIVRB4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:01:56 -0400 Received: by iwn28 with SMTP id 28so568472iwn.22 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:01:39 -0700 Message-ID: <43e72e890909221001m19f076d8n64fb012b486f666a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Synching trees for BT 3.0 and a possible compat-bluetooth To: "John W. Linville" , Marcel Holtmann , "Jouni.Malinen" , Johannes Berg Cc: Gaurav Jauhar , Senthil Balasubramanian , Jothikumar Mothilal , linux-wireless , Kevin Hayes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I forgot to poke about BT 3.0 synching at the summit. To work on bluetooth 3.0 we'll need some synching of trees between wireless-testing and Marcel's bluetooth tree. Also a compat-bluetooth might be in order to accomplish the same as we do with compat-wireless, only it would seem logical to consider tying to just merge this with compat-wireless to get the features required for bluetooth 3.0; to do this having one tree with both would be nice with the added benefit of all the same compat-2.6.3x.[ch] files being reused. Synching of the trees would be required only when a feature on one tree is not yet available on the latest rc kernel (provided marcel rebases on Linus' latest rc as well, not sure), this will probably be important during initial implementation, not sure how much divergence we should expect after this goes through a release through Linus. So any thoughts on synching bluetooth and wireless-testing other than doing so on a private tree for development purposes? Luis