Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:13:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20121115.151341.694285418420091290.davem@davemloft.net>
To: ben@decadent.org.uk
Cc: gustavo@padovan.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
        ulisses@profusion.mobi, marcel@holtmann.org,
        vinicius.gomes@openbossa.org, linville@tuxdriver.com
Subject: Re: [ 01/82] Bluetooth: Always compile SCO and L2CAP in Bluetooth
 Core
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <1353009872.4867.68.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
References: <20121114.163044.2287972932330697472.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20121114213819.GT13292@decadent.org.uk>
	<1353009872.4867.68.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2575
Lines: 67

From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:04:32 +0000

> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 21:38 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:30:44PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
>> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:24:26 -0200
>> > 
>> > > Hi Ben,
>> > > 
>> > > * Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> [2012-11-14 05:39:34 +0000]:
>> > > 
>> > >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>> > >> 
>> > >> ------------------
>> > >> 
>> > >> From: Ulisses Furquim <ulisses@profusion.mobi>
>> > >> 
>> > >> commit f1e91e1640d808d332498a6b09b2bcd01462eff9 upstream.
>> > >> 
>> > >> The handling of SCO audio links and the L2CAP protocol are essential to
>> > >> any system with Bluetooth thus are always compiled in from now on.
>> > > 
>> > > I wonder if this could not break any kind of script or code people have that
>> > > refer directly to the sco and l2cap modules. Also I don't see this change as
>> > > really necessary for 3.2.
>> > 
>> > Agreed, I wish this had not been merged into -stable, I would have never
>> > submitted a patch like this myself.
>> 
>> This is required by:
>> 
>> commit ff03261adc8b4bdd8291f1783c079b53a892b429
>> Author: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@openbossa.org>
>> Date:   Thu Aug 23 21:32:44 2012 -0300
>> 
>>     Bluetooth: Fix sending a HCI Authorization Request over LE links
>>     
>>     commit d8343f125710fb596f7a88cd756679f14f4e77b9 upstream.
>> 
>> which was already applied.
> 
> So, do you think it's better to revert that in 3.2, or to go ahead with
> this?

I can't believe that just turning on bluetooth is going to force
enable these sub-protocols too, that's simply rediculous.  That
change should have never gone into the tree.

Do I _REALLY_ have to go back to validating all the bluetooth stuff by
hand when John Linville sends me pull requests?  Seriously?

I thought we were beyond that kind of bullshit after the coding style
fiasco.

Actually I have a better idea, how about John stops pulling the
bluetooth stuff into his tree, and instead the bluetooth folks have to
submit their changes individually to the netdev list.  I like that
scheme better.

Because I don't want John's wireless work held back by the garbage
these bluetooth guys keep submitting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/