Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:36727 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751365Ab1BNXCz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:02:55 -0500 Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so3518002qwa.19 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:02:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1297723925.5683.11.camel@maggie> References: <1297282621.9734.5.camel@maggie> <1297720877.5683.3.camel@maggie> <1297723925.5683.11.camel@maggie> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Notes on ssb specs and implementation From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_B=C3=BCsch?= Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Larry Finger , b43-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: W dniu 14 lutego 2011 23:52 użytkownik Michael Büsch napisał: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 23:32 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> Sure. It's not for submission, so you have to expect magic values. > > That patch doesn't look too bad. Should we commit such a patch? Even if we didn't notice it to improve anything? -- Rafał