On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Bruno Randolf <b...@einfach.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 09 March 2010 01:24:48 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Thanks Bruno, are these stable fixes? >> > >> > hi luis! >> > >> > i think so. the behaviour before was completely broken, now it's better. >> > >> > but i'm not sure about that whole Cc: sta...@kernel.org thing... (sorry >> > i've been away for a while)... i read >> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt but still not sure if that applies >> > for this patch. >> >> Just add: >> >> Cc: sta...@kernel.org >> >> below your Singed-off-by on the commit log entry. That list will get >> spammed once the patch is merged on Linus' tree. > > i understand that. > > the question is more if my patch justifies bothering 'stable' or not. > > as i said, in my point of view ath5k has several problems right now > (performace and stability), and i guess nobody will be using it seriously in > actual production use (does anyone?). so i think it does not really matter if > this or any of my other patches go into stable sooner or later. does it?
2.6.32 will be used by a lot of "enterprise" releases, I'd prefer connection stability fixes do indeed go in for 2.6.32 for ath5k, this seems like one. I'll let John be the judge. Luis _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
