From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from pool-71-115-156-71.gdrpmi.dsl-w.verizon.net ([71.115.156.71]:42864 "EHLO s0be.servebeer.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751586AbZA2AjT (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:39:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4980FAB3.9050706@erley.org> (sfid-20090129_013923_003114_D1E1DFFB) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:39:15 -0500 From: pat-lkml MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: linux-wireless Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0 References: <4980EDC8.4050204@erley.org> (sfid-20090129_004437_360979_B9D4728F) <1233187526.16048.95.camel@johannes.local> <4980F67C.70207@erley.org> <1233189164.16048.106.camel@johannes.local> In-Reply-To: <1233189164.16048.106.camel@johannes.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:21 -0500, pat-lkml wrote: >> Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:44 -0500, pat-lkml wrote: >>>> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock. Update crda to the new names >>>> and add #define for libnl-1.1. >>> But libnl-2.0 comes with a define too: >>> #define nl_handle nl_sock >>> >>> you just need to include the right headers, no? >>> >>> johannes >> dunno.... but I can't find it: >> >> libnl $ egrep "#define nl_handle" * -r >> libnl $ git pull >> Already up-to-date. > > Ah. Grr. Just recently removed. > > johannes Which leads back around to my question, should I continue pushing patches like this your way (after making sure the right patch is on the right e-mail with the right description), or do we want to wait and I'll just maintain the patches outside of git, and push them once libnl-2.0 hits? On one hand, it makes testing both versions easier, on the other, it makes a lot of little 'fix' commits like this. I have no issues maintaining these sorts of patches, but I don't want to do it if you don't want them. Pat