From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: pull request: wireless-2.6 'upstream' 2008-01-22 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:30:07 +0100 Message-ID: <200801231230.07734.mb@bu3sch.de> References: <20080123014521.GG3206@tuxdriver.com> <20080123121551.4586e706@morte> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "John W. Linville" , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org To: Stefano Brivio Return-path: Received: from vs166246.vserver.de ([62.75.166.246]:34310 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750710AbYAWLbb (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:31:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080123121551.4586e706@morte> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 23 January 2008 12:15:51 Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:45:21 -0500 > "John W. Linville" wrote: > > > b43legacy: Remove the PHY spinlock > > I hope you tested this. I still haven't been able to (I received the > needed hardware yesterday), and Michael said that the patch has been > compile-tested only. John, if we use subject lines such as: [PATCH RFT] foobar: bizbaz That means the patch is _not_ submitted for inclusion, yet. The RFT means Request-For-Testing. Ususally, if I send out such patches, they are completely untested. I usually compiletest them, but that's it. But in future I can also put a comment into the mailbody that explains why to not apply it, yet. For this particular patch, please leave it in now. I'm pretty sure it is correct. So actual testing will be done upstream now. ;) -- Greetings Michael.