Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com ([209.85.221.179]:44814 "EHLO mail-qy0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756176Ab0CIAra (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:47:30 -0500 Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so5184449qyk.5 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:47:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201003090934.59740.br1@einfach.org> References: <20100308025841.7460.69949.stgit@void> <201003081317.25155.br1@einfach.org> <43e72e891003080824l74ecd4fbrf5a02e51c275c9b1@mail.gmail.com> <201003090934.59740.br1@einfach.org> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:47:09 -0800 Message-ID: <43e72e891003081647r5cb0a286la5217ff1f97e0652@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v2] ath5k: fix I/Q calibration (for real) To: Bruno Randolf Cc: ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Tuesday 09 March 2010 01:24:48 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Thanks Bruno, are these stable fixes? >> > >> > hi luis! >> > >> > i think so. the behaviour before was completely broken, now it's better. >> > >> > but i'm not sure about that whole Cc: stable@kernel.org thing... (sorry >> > i've been away for a while)... i read >> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt but still not sure if that applies >> > for this patch. >> >> Just add: >> >> Cc: stable@kernel.org >> >> below your Singed-off-by on the commit log entry. That list will get >> spammed once the patch is merged on Linus' tree. > > i understand that. > > the question is more if my patch justifies bothering 'stable' or not. > > as i said, in my point of view ath5k has several problems right now > (performace and stability), and i guess nobody will be using it seriously in > actual production use (does anyone?). so i think it does not really matter if > this or any of my other patches go into stable sooner or later. does it? 2.6.32 will be used by a lot of "enterprise" releases, I'd prefer connection stability fixes do indeed go in for 2.6.32 for ath5k, this seems like one. I'll let John be the judge. Luis