2009/5/12 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 09:37:56PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> 2009/5/12 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 03:23:13PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrot=
e:
>> >> Fix this build error:
>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c: In function 'agnx_config_interface':
>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c:315: error: dereferencing pointer to i=
ncomplete type
>> >> ..
>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c:424: error: unknown field 'config_inte=
rface' specified in initializer
>> >>
>> >> config_interface was removed in 2d0ddec5b2b
>> >> ("mac80211: unify config_interface and bss_info_changed")
>> >
>> > I do not see that patch in Linus's tree. =C2=A0Is it in some other=
tree
>> > (wireless?) and not yet in mainline?
>> Yes, it is in wireless from linux-next.
>> You asked to send patches based on linux-next, right?
>> Should I always mark patches for staging-next tree as [PATCH -next] =
?
>
> Hm, yes, -staging patches need to be against -next, but I have to be
> able to build these somehow on my own without the wireless tree...
>
> I think something like this might better go through the wireless tree=
as
> it depends on changes that happen there. =C2=A0Sound good to you?
Ok, thanks Greg.
> If so, please send them to the wireless maintainer.
John, will you apply it?
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:12:50PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
> 2009/5/13 Alexander Beregalov <[email protected]>:
> > 2009/5/12 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
> >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 09:37:56PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
> >>> 2009/5/12 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
> >>> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 03:23:13PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
> >>> >> Fix this build error:
> >>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c: In function 'agnx_config_interface':
> >>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c:315: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
> >>> >> ..
> >>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c:424: error: unknown field 'config_interface' specified in initializer
> >>> >>
> >>> >> config_interface was removed in 2d0ddec5b2b
> >>> >> ("mac80211: unify config_interface and bss_info_changed")
> >>> >
> >>> > I do not see that patch in Linus's tree. ?Is it in some other tree
> >>> > (wireless?) and not yet in mainline?
> >>> Yes, it is in wireless from linux-next.
> >>> You asked to send patches based on linux-next, right?
> >>> Should I always mark patches for staging-next tree as [PATCH -next] ?
> >>
> >> Hm, yes, -staging patches need to be against -next, but I have to be
> >> able to build these somehow on my own without the wireless tree...
> >>
> >> I think something like this might better go through the wireless tree as
> >> it depends on changes that happen there. ?Sound good to you?
> > Ok, thanks Greg.
> >
> >> If so, please send them to the wireless maintainer.
> > John, will you apply it?
>
> John?
*grumble*
I guess I will...
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
2009/5/13 Alexander Beregalov <[email protected]>:
> 2009/5/12 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 09:37:56PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>>> 2009/5/12 Greg KH <[email protected]>:
>>> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 03:23:13PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>>> >> Fix this build error:
>>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c: In function 'agnx_config_interface':
>>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c:315: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
>>> >> ..
>>> >> drivers/staging/agnx/pci.c:424: error: unknown field 'config_interface' specified in initializer
>>> >>
>>> >> config_interface was removed in 2d0ddec5b2b
>>> >> ("mac80211: unify config_interface and bss_info_changed")
>>> >
>>> > I do not see that patch in Linus's tree. Is it in some other tree
>>> > (wireless?) and not yet in mainline?
>>> Yes, it is in wireless from linux-next.
>>> You asked to send patches based on linux-next, right?
>>> Should I always mark patches for staging-next tree as [PATCH -next] ?
>>
>> Hm, yes, -staging patches need to be against -next, but I have to be
>> able to build these somehow on my own without the wireless tree...
>>
>> I think something like this might better go through the wireless tree as
>> it depends on changes that happen there. Sound good to you?
> Ok, thanks Greg.
>
>> If so, please send them to the wireless maintainer.
> John, will you apply it?
John?