From: "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:34:03 -0400
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:20:30AM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 11:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > it really needs to be moved into a directory of it's own.
> >
> > It used to be... Joh
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:20:30AM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
> > The depends on m for CONFIG_IWL4965 and CONFIG_IWL3945 needs to go,
> > we don't put drivers int that need to be modular.
>
> Since we splited the code base for 3945 and 4965 by a simple "fork" of
> file iwl-base.c, some non-static funct
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:20:30AM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 11:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > it really needs to be moved into a directory of it's own.
>
> It used to be... John?
Fine by me -- I guess I misinterpreted the some other statements to
make me think we wante
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 11:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> it really needs to be moved into a directory of it's own.
It used to be... John?
> The useless per-file CFLAGS need to go most places can trivially
> be made unconditional anyway.
OK.
> The depends on m for CONFIG_IWL4965 and CONFIG_
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:28:52AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> >Jeff, if you have no objections I'll pull this into net-2.6.24
> Given that there is now a large backlog of new drivers to review, I
> think the preferred course of action would be to queue them into -mm
> (via
David Miller wrote:
Jeff, if you have no objections I'll pull this into net-2.6.24
Given that there is now a large backlog of new drivers to review, I
think the preferred course of action would be to queue them into -mm
(via net-2.6.24) for wider review and testing, and then make sure they
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:50:40PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> Jeff & Dave,
>
> Here it is -- it's big, it's...well...beautiful in its own way...well,
> at least it seems to work... :-)
>
> There are some outstanding issues. The driver does more than it
> probably should under the covers in
From: "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:50:40 -0400
> Jeff & Dave,
>
> Here it is -- it's big, it's...well...beautiful in its own way...well,
> at least it seems to work... :-)
>
> There are some outstanding issues. The driver does more than it
> probably should u
Jeff & Dave,
Here it is -- it's big, it's...well...beautiful in its own way...well,
at least it seems to work... :-)
There are some outstanding issues. The driver does more than it
probably should under the covers instead of in the stack, and the
issue of including headers with a "../../mac80211
