Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:35005 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755588Ab1BXQBj (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:01:39 -0500 Received: by qwd7 with SMTP id 7so531606qwd.19 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:01:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1298563114.4251.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1298554926.4775.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1298563114.4251.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:01:38 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: make tx() operation return void From: Sedat Dilek To: Johannes Berg Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 16:56 +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Johannes Berg > >> Will this patch go into 2.6.39? >> I have modified it as a v2 to fit latest linux-next ("apply-tested"). > > Presumably. I'd based it on wireless-testing, but why did you use > linux-next rather than wireless-next? What's the difference anyway? > > johannes > IIRC current linux-next and wireless-next don't differ, so it doesn't matter :-). I have removed only the drivers/staging/brcm80211/sys/wl_mac80211.c part as it does not exist in -next. - Sedat -