From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Bluetooth fixes for 2.6.27 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080908.213050.176981752.davem@davemloft.net> References: <0E7517ED-A2C3-4DFB-9733-0DAEA82F3815@holtmann.org> <20080908.194209.111481398.davem@davemloft.net> <1220934481.11655.32.camel@californication> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: marcel@holtmann.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:45218 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751029AbYIIEa4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:30:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1220934481.11655.32.camel@californication> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Marcel Holtmann Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:28:01 +0200 > > > The number of users are still limited to a few people actually > > > testing with 2.1 hardware. These are mainly people working on 2.1 > > > enabled products. However with the new MacBooks and the EeePC 901 we > > > do have devices with Bluetooth 2.1 chips available for everybody. > > > > > > This is clearly an oversight on my hand when developing the initial > > > Simple Pairing patches that I submitted for 2.6.27-rc1 and I only > > > found it when we tested against the official Bluetooth 2.1 test > > > system. > > > > This is the core issue, if it regresses from 2.6.26, and if so you should > > mention that somewhere. Best would be in the commit message itself. > > > > Then I wouldn't have had to ask you anything. > > > > But instead you're having to describe it for me here in this email, which > > nobody can see when scanning the GIT commit messages, so it essentially > > might as well not even exist. > > I thought that I did describe this properly in the commit message, but > it could also only be clear to me. Do you want me to fix up the commit > message with more details? Where in your commit message did you specifically state and explain that this problem is specifically a regression against 2.6.26? I didn't catch that part.