d80211-drivers updated (zd1211rw-d80211 synced with zd1211rw)

d80211-drivers updated (zd1211rw-d80211 synced with zd1211rw)

[Michael Wu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

Hi,
	I've just "ported" 8 patches that were in the wireless-2.6 version of 
zd1211rw that weren't in the wireless-dev version. All of them, except for 
the cleanups patch, applied with just an offset, and all of the broken hunks 
in the cleanups patch were just thrown away since the code they were 
modifying doesn't exist anymore.

      zd1211rw-d80211: Fix of a locking bug
      zd1211rw-d80211: Revert "zd1211rw: Removed unneeded packed attributes"
      zd1211rw-d80211: Add 3 more device IDs
      zd1211rw-d80211: Add ID for ZyXEL G-220
      zd1211rw-d80211: Add ID for Planex GW-US54Mini
      zd1211rw-d80211: Add ID for Belkin F5D7050 v4000
      zd1211rw-d80211: cleanups
      zd1211rw-d80211: Optimized handling of zero length entries in length 
info

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mwu/d80211-drivers.git

These patches are in the week-48 branch. (I think it should actually be 
week-49, but I realized after I committed..) I'll post a pull request at the 
end of every week when there are patches and branch. Patches sent here can be 
expected to be merged in a day. Other (d80211) wireless drivers are welcome 
to send patches this way if they do not have their own git tree for Linville 
to pull.

Currently, patches are going into the week-48 branch, but I will switch to 
putting patches in the master branch and branching off master before every 
pull request for next week.

-Michael Wu

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: d80211-drivers updated (zd1211rw-d80211 synced with zd1211rw)

[John W. Linville]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:50:39AM -0500, Michael Wu wrote:

> Other (d80211) wireless drivers are welcome 
> to send patches this way if they do not have their own git tree for Linville 
> to pull.

Please don't do this.  It adds to my pain for reviewing patches.

I don't mind (and maybe even like) pulling w/ git from primary driver
authors.  But, I would prefer not to add extra layers of git between
me and the patch authors.

Similarly, I would prefer for Ulrich or Daniel to maintain the zd1211rw
git tree unless you (i.e. Michael) are going to be one of the primary
authors going forward.

While I'm complaining :-), I would probably prefer it if you had
adm8211 and p54 in separate git trees (or at least on separate
branches) as well.  That way, if there is a problem in a p54 patch
series, I can still pull adm8211 (or vice versa).

It is not my intent to scold (so please don't feel scolded).  It just
is counter-productive to prematurely consolidate merging duties.

Thanks,

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com

Re: d80211-drivers updated (zd1211rw-d80211 synced with zd1211rw)

[Daniel Drake]

John W. Linville wrote:
> Similarly, I would prefer for Ulrich or Daniel to maintain the zd1211rw
> git tree unless you (i.e. Michael) are going to be one of the primary
> authors going forward.

OK. Myself and Ulrich have discussed this, we are going to create our 
own git trees for zd1211rw-d80211.

The attraction of sending pull requests to Michael is that he should be 
able to merge patches and push out updated trees quicker. If the 
turnaround is quicker here it would really mean we could stop having to 
maintain our own git stuff and simply use the upstream tree as the base.

However, this isn't really a big deal: Ulrich wants to use git 
regardless, and I'm still the patch monkey, so I will continue using git 
as well (regardless of upstream merge time turnaround).

Daniel

Re: d80211-drivers updated (zd1211rw-d80211 synced with zd1211rw)

[Michael Wu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]

On Monday 04 December 2006 07:51, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:50:39AM -0500, Michael Wu wrote:
> > Other (d80211) wireless drivers are welcome
> > to send patches this way if they do not have their own git tree for
> > Linville to pull.
>
> Please don't do this.  It adds to my pain for reviewing patches.
>
Sure.

> While I'm complaining :-), I would probably prefer it if you had
> adm8211 and p54 in separate git trees (or at least on separate
> branches) as well.  That way, if there is a problem in a p54 patch
> series, I can still pull adm8211 (or vice versa).
>
I will keep separate branches for each driver then.

> It is not my intent to scold (so please don't feel scolded).  It just
> is counter-productive to prematurely consolidate merging duties.
>
No problem. It seemed like a good idea for zd1211rw, so I was offering to do 
the same for other drivers.

Thanks,
-Michael Wu

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]