On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> That was 2 years ago when you asked me ;-) Since then I have been using it
> to backport the brcm80211 mainline drivers to 1) Android kernel, ie. 3.4
> kernel, and 2) Fedora 19 which is actually fixed to 3.11 kernel.
>
> So we use
On 10/04/14 20:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Ok, I guess my voice was cracking when I mentioned 2.6.38 as being used over
here. I am probably alone in that desert.
I thought broadcom didn't use backports? If they do can you explain
On 10/04/14 20:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Arend van Spriel ar...@broadcom.com wrote:
Ok, I guess my voice was cracking when I mentioned 2.6.38 as being used over
here. I am probably alone in that desert.
I thought broadcom didn't use backports? If they do
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Arend van Spriel ar...@broadcom.com wrote:
That was 2 years ago when you asked me ;-) Since then I have been using it
to backport the brcm80211 mainline drivers to 1) Android kernel, ie. 3.4
kernel, and 2) Fedora 19 which is actually fixed to 3.11 kernel.
So
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> Ok, I guess my voice was cracking when I mentioned 2.6.38 as being used over
> here. I am probably alone in that desert.
I thought broadcom didn't use backports? If they do can you explain
how? Also what drivers do you need enabled for
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 19:26 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2014-04-10 19:16, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:18 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >
> >> I'm looking forward to getting rid of patches for older kernels that
> >> often get in the way when using various
On 2014-04-10 19:16, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:18 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>
>> I'm looking forward to getting rid of patches for older kernels that
>> often get in the way when using various wireless-testing versions ;)
>
> What do you frequently get conflicts on? I
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:18 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> I'm looking forward to getting rid of patches for older kernels that
> often get in the way when using various wireless-testing versions ;)
What do you frequently get conflicts on? I haven't seen any for a long
time.
johannes
--
To
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 04/10/14 18:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>>
>>> At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
>>> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700,
On 04/10/14 18:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
On
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at
At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Apr 9,
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:06 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Why 3.0? That's not supported by anyone anymore for "new hardware", I'd
> move to 3.2 if you could, as that's the Debian stable release that will
> be maintained for quite some time yet:
>
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:06 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Why 3.0? That's not supported by anyone anymore for new hardware, I'd
move to 3.2 if you could, as that's the Debian stable release that will
be maintained for quite some time yet:
At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwai ti...@suse.de wrote:
At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On
On 04/10/14 18:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwaiti...@suse.de wrote:
At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Arend van Spriel ar...@broadcom.com wrote:
On 04/10/14 18:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwaiti...@suse.de wrote:
At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:18 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
I'm looking forward to getting rid of patches for older kernels that
often get in the way when using various wireless-testing versions ;)
What do you frequently get conflicts on? I haven't seen any for a long
time.
johannes
--
To
On 2014-04-10 19:16, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:18 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
I'm looking forward to getting rid of patches for older kernels that
often get in the way when using various wireless-testing versions ;)
What do you frequently get conflicts on? I haven't
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 19:26 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2014-04-10 19:16, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:18 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
I'm looking forward to getting rid of patches for older kernels that
often get in the way when using various wireless-testing versions
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Arend van Spriel ar...@broadcom.com wrote:
Ok, I guess my voice was cracking when I mentioned 2.6.38 as being used over
here. I am probably alone in that desert.
I thought broadcom didn't use backports? If they do can you explain
how? Also what drivers do you
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> > The oldest kernel in OpenWrt
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> > The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates of
>> > the backports tree is 3.3, so
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> > The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates of
> > the backports tree is 3.3, so raising the minimum requirement to 3.0 is
> > completely fine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates of
> the backports tree is 3.3, so raising the minimum requirement to 3.0 is
> completely fine with me.
OK note that 3.3 is not listed on kernel.org as supported. I'm fine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
> A lot of test teams in broadcom wlan are still using Fedora 15 running a
> 2.6.38 kernel. We are pushing them to move to Fedora 19.
Fedora 19 seems to be on 3.13, neat!
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 09/04/14 03:03, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Folks,
[...]
To start off -- what's the *last* kernel you realistically need for
your users to use backports right now? Is it really 2.6.25? Would
anyone kick and scream if for the backports-3.15 release try take
things up to support only down to
On 2014-04-09 03:03, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Folks,
>
> we have a age old dance of random parties, in particular the embedded
> folks, ending up with random ancient kernels on embedded devices. I've
> tried to carefully document a few ideas on why and how I believe we
> can make automatic
On 2014-04-09 03:03, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Folks,
we have a age old dance of random parties, in particular the embedded
folks, ending up with random ancient kernels on embedded devices. I've
tried to carefully document a few ideas on why and how I believe we
can make automatic kernel
On 09/04/14 03:03, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Folks,
[...]
To start off -- what's the *last* kernel you realistically need for
your users to use backports right now? Is it really 2.6.25? Would
anyone kick and scream if for the backports-3.15 release try take
things up to support only down to
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Arend van Spriel ar...@broadcom.com wrote:
A lot of test teams in broadcom wlan are still using Fedora 15 running a
2.6.38 kernel. We are pushing them to move to Fedora 19.
Fedora 19 seems to be on 3.13, neat!
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates of
the backports tree is 3.3, so raising the minimum requirement to 3.0 is
completely fine with me.
OK note that 3.3 is not listed on kernel.org as
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates of
the backports tree is 3.3, so raising the minimum requirement to 3.0 is
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R.
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
Folks,
we have a age old dance of random parties, in particular the embedded
folks, ending up with random ancient kernels on embedded devices. I've
tried to carefully document a few ideas on why and how I believe we
can make automatic kernel backporting scale [0] and part of this will
be to try
Folks,
we have a age old dance of random parties, in particular the embedded
folks, ending up with random ancient kernels on embedded devices. I've
tried to carefully document a few ideas on why and how I believe we
can make automatic kernel backporting scale [0] and part of this will
be to try
42 matches
Mail list logo
