From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry Finger Subject: Re: [PATCH] WE-21 for bcm43xx (wireless-2.6 git) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:22:22 -0500 Message-ID: <44F6E28E.2080807@lwfinger.net> References: <44F633F0.7090605@lwfinger.net> <200608311452.46166.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: John Linville , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, Jean Tourrilhes , Stefano Brivio Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.115]:27781 "EHLO mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932229AbWHaNW7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:22:59 -0400 To: Michael Buesch In-Reply-To: <200608311452.46166.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 31 August 2006 02:57, Larry Finger wrote: >> >> +#if WIRELESS_EXT > 20 >> +#define IW_ESSID_FIX 0 >> +#else >> +#define IW_ESSID_FIX 1 >> +#endif > > Eh, was this useless #if in the original patch I signed-off, too? > Because I want to revert my sign-off. :) > This #if is useless, because we always deal with only one single > WE version in the kernel. #if WIRELESS_EXT will always be true. > So remove this and also remove the other #if below. > Yes, it was. I saw this, but left it in because I cannot control the inclusion of the other patch that brings the NET components up to WE-21, and it seemed that the behavior could be wrong if the kernel were at WE-20. I'm quite certain that the patch will _NOT_ be included in 2.6.18 as it is clearly not a bug fix. Once I see WE-21 in the kernel, I'll remove these #ifdef's and eliminate IW_ESSID_FIX. If I missed something, please let me know, and I'll resubmit the patch now. John, have you merged, or do you plan to merge, "[PATCH 2.6.18] WE-21 support (core API)" into wireless-2.6? Larry