Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:42338 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761424AbXKOQth (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:49:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/15] mac80211/iwlwifi (#everything): integrate IEEE802.11n support From: Johannes Berg To: Guy Cohen Cc: Ron Rindjunsky , linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, flamingice@sourmilk.net, tomas.winkler@intel.com In-Reply-To: <247d6d340711150233h7988220fifb0d34170d16a979@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20071115_103946_582002_A2DCEB54) References: <11950541913679-git-send-email-ron.rindjunsky@intel.com> <1195056662.4091.29.camel@johannes.berg> <247d6d340711150233h7988220fifb0d34170d16a979@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20071115_103946_582002_A2DCEB54) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-19wDG5XqI/O2GYoICHib" Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:04:43 +0100 Message-Id: <1195142683.13846.62.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20071115_164947_547726_6F335E17) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-19wDG5XqI/O2GYoICHib Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Guy, > We understand that these two issues need to be taken care of, and they > will be. My concern is that if current patches won't be merged soon, > we will have to pay the effort to rebase the patches again. We are > very limited with resources dedicated to supporting the merge of > 802.11n to wireless-dev. This mailing list taught us in the "hard way" > in the recent months: submit often submit early... So for making Ron's > work efficient I suggest to merge his patches and let him do the fixes > on top of them, specially since the two fixes are not 802.11n core > critical issues and don't break any existing working flows. Do you > feel comfortable with this approach? I understand your concern, however, if for some reason this doesn't happen quickly enough we'll end up with code that is vulnerable in weird ways. I'd have no issue with these patches if deaggregation support was optional until we have the patchset that reworks that code. Can we do that? johannes --=-19wDG5XqI/O2GYoICHib Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIVAwUARzxuGqVg1VMiehFYAQKrFQ/9GFaz37oIjsPtkn8BykJbBSKLE8S8/hdK 0j3m0dvrc6LtjoSdjmLCE7WBDpJ8qKa4yXgccfkAZb8elCNfL/NUMr04c0JwZeO5 32DuDTnXgVJv+VK9+/dRQJNTP9HJYVDVDdAYQ8lagjA12O1PjOmyMMvMdFSCC/mV vLW/QMWzut2Dpz68bEZRAZon3gW89c6f0ghfuzt1CJVpEk75VeditvIOHMbddZKR 9TMKvqpodVR3fNwR6H9oGRn4ksXJW5QlXmIos8ZVmMcWkXZrY4I3Sqqih7ezZfr7 61PMZ5r+jm1an4NIhQg5oDeV81zLF3QMXX06amMoHDeDakpW2E8dKD+bwT0czKdx 6ODdDevdQhzVPXIskrP6pzJDXLdSwmnuCr1EIZ9M7IUEcKhu6e0QdcJBQwtQPMqQ hlp/QlV724SA9BxhGQwAoxo6kfEL/ivBeKPSMOjmBfOHzqCU44FNaDWkpDhiTH3a 8KRz+YYzndXC4BvbQLA/sePMhlYdip6FstRv4FyIwENJQw2Sha8O/BHIl4uU+ZYB NBtpJAvNlj9xDPXdgefPyCXGgswcV7guzMkM+kmqFzlAKIdaYj6gEl/uWBG3kDkr zClapztuvbrvE5vFWjDea/F2vK+5AS2LUPxv6/dbqhTmc69XdIl+z89s5vfiIqEk QWhlKl/SiuI= =Fb4C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-19wDG5XqI/O2GYoICHib--