Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f200.google.com ([209.85.222.200]:54966 "EHLO mail-pz0-f200.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756389Ab0CIBVs (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:21:48 -0500 Received: by pzk38 with SMTP id 38so1409967pzk.33 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:21:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201003090950.21811.br1@einfach.org> References: <20100308025841.7460.69949.stgit@void> <201003090934.59740.br1@einfach.org> <43e72e891003081647r5cb0a286la5217ff1f97e0652@mail.gmail.com> <201003090950.21811.br1@einfach.org> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:21:27 -0800 Message-ID: <43e72e891003081721h3db9ca53n4a3688ca8aa452a4@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 4:50 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Tuesday 09 March 2010 09:47:09 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> 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. > > sure, as i said, i don't mind. :) Alright lets skip stable for this. Luis