Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch)

Alexey Zaytsev
2008-02-22T20:38:45Z

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > > It is not my problem, if you refuse to use b43.
> > > You also still refuse to tell me details about your card and _what_
> > > does not work. I do own lots of different card and they
> > > all work fine with b43. There's one exception, the 4311 rev 3 (or something,
> > > don't quite remember). But patches are available and will ship in 2.6.25.
> > > bcm43xx won't get removed until that shipped.
> >
> > Yes, it's a 4311 rev 01, but I'm probably was just too lame to upgrade the
> > firmware or something. :E
> >
> > I really don't get it, what is going on here? You state that the new b32 driver
> > has problems on some hardware, where the old bcm43xx driver just works.
> > And at the same time, you are surprised that I "refuse" to use the b43 driver
> > and push patches for the bcm43xx driver you broke... Oh, really, why?!
>
> So, please find someone who will sign-off your patch. I won't.
> What's so hard to understand about that? Do I _have_ to sign off all patches
> random people send to me?
> I do _not_ want to be made responsible for that patch by signing it off.
> It is as simple as that.
> And I officially do not care about bcm43xx since a year and a half anymore.
> So why should I ACK it or sign it off?
>

I thought that there was a rule that if you break something in the kernel, you
normally would be the one who fixes things up. Sorry, it looks I was wrong.

I'll resend the patch directly to Greg KH and Jeff Garzik for -stable and 2.6.25
inclusion.