Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758786AbZLPGq2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:46:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753958AbZLPGqY (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:46:24 -0500 Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:59017 "EHLO adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752904AbZLPGqX (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:46:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4B288232.4060901@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:46:10 +0800 From: Ike Panhc User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: reinette chatre , "John W. Linville" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Winkler, Tomas" , "stable@kernel.org" , "Guy, Wey-Yi W" , "Zhu, Yi" Subject: Re: [stable] [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: unify iwl_setup_rxon_timing References: <1260848655-5582-1-git-send-email-ike.pan@canonical.com> <1260848710-5650-1-git-send-email-ike.pan@canonical.com> <20091215041500.GB31200@kroah.com> <4B273479.6050502@canonical.com> <20091215134943.GA11667@kroah.com> <20091215163100.GC8097@tuxdriver.com> <1260906168.9623.4.camel@rc-desk> <20091215194938.GA13297@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20091215194938.GA13297@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1248 Lines: 30 Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:42:48AM -0800, reinette chatre wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 08:31 -0800, John W. Linville wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 05:49:43AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: >>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:02:17PM +0800, Ike Panhc wrote: >>>>> Please consider applying to linux-2.6.31.y >>>> I need the subsystem maintainer to agree with this, have they? >>> It seems fine to me. You may want to let Intel comment too. >>> >> No objection here. Even so, I find it strange that this patch fixes a >> problem since it really should not have any functional changes. > > Ok, if there is no functional change, why is this needed? > > Ike? > > thanks, > > greg k-h I review the patch again. Yes, it is no functional change. Sorry I have misunderstanding about the patch. Please do not put the second patch into stable. But Please consider applying the first patch (change IWL6000_UCODE_API_MAX to v4) to 2.6.31-stable tree. It will be good to use v4 firmware on iwl6000. -- 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/