Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134]:45470 "EHLO mgw-mx09.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753448Ab0CZNhr (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:37:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] wl1271: bunch of patches from our internal tree wk12 From: Luciano Coelho To: "ext John W. Linville" Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20100326132632.GD15128@tuxdriver.com> References: <1269600813-32145-1-git-send-email-luciano.coelho@nokia.com> <20100326130215.GA15128@tuxdriver.com> <1269609195.22348.13.camel@powerslave> <20100326132632.GD15128@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:37:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1269610633.22348.29.camel@powerslave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 14:26 +0100, ext John W. Linville wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:13:15PM +0200, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 14:02 +0100, ext John W. Linville wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:53:09PM +0200, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > Here are 25 more patches for wl1271 which are still pending in our internal > > > > tree. Please apply. :) > > > > > > Are we catching-up? Or will these dumps continue indefinitely? > > > > Now we have finally caught up! Sorry for the mess, but we haven't been > > sending patches for a while and they really got delayed. > > > > The idea from now on is to send them weekly (still in patch-sets), but > > not so many at once. We review and test our patches internally before > > sending upstream, that's why we have to send them in batches. > > Apparently Nokia, Intel, and maybe Atheros need to form some sort of > support group -- Patch-hoarder's Anonymous... :-) LOL! > > I'm currently reconsidering this process and trying to figure out how we > > can do things in a simpler way. We are already doing all our mac80211 > > work upstream, but for the driver we haven't found a good solution yet. > > > > Would you prefer to pull stuff from a git tree instead of applying the > > patches? > > It doesn't make a great deal of difference to me. I have been pulling > from Intel for a little while now, and that has worked-out fairly > well from my perspective. But, applying patchbombs is usually easy > so long as there hasn't been lots of other activity in the driver. > So, whatever is convenient for you is probably acceptable to me. Good that this hasn't been causing too much extra work for you. If you have any trouble applying the patches I send, just let me know and I'll fix it. I think the main drawback of sending patchbombs is that we don't get good reviews from the community. Nobody wants to dig into a so many patches at once, so it would probably be much better to have the patches sent one-by-one (or in relevant sets). Unfortunately, we still have many internal rounds before we're satisfied with the patches. But I'll see if we can change that. Tfyh! :) -- Cheers, Luca.