From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MrCif-00067P-NJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:28:25 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MrCib-00066Q-Qa
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:28:25 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45723 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MrCib-00066G-MR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:28:21 -0400
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:58048)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1MrCib-0003wf-8U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:28:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4ABCE192.8020704@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:28:18 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] eepro100: Don't allow guests to fail
	assertions
References: <1253720562-13104-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<4ABA62D3.6030900@mail.berlios.de> <4ABC9815.4010007@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4ABC9815.4010007@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Kevin Wolf schrieb:
> Am 23.09.2009 20:02, schrieb Stefan Weil:
>> There are about 10 pending patches for eepro100.c, so the code at
>> savannah is
>> not a good base for new patches of eepro100.c. And there are even more
>> patches
>> in my queue to be sent as soon as the first 10 are integrated.
>
> On second thought, your 10+ patches are only for master, I assume? Then
> this patch should be applied in its current version to the stable
> branch(es). I'll still rebase for master, of course.
>
> Kevin
>

The patches are needed for the stable branches as well because
they fix multicast, endianess and other issues which are really
very important for users who want to use this driver.

But patch integration through mailing lists and a handful of
bottle necks is very time consuming, so I don't dare to dream
of fixing the stable branches :-)

Stefan