Return-path: Received: from wondertoys-mx.wondertoys.net ([206.117.179.246]:44488 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752991Ab1HYCp5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:45:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Move brcm80211 to mainline From: Joe Perches To: Greg KH Cc: Henry Ptasinski , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" In-Reply-To: <20110825022352.GA4876@suse.de> References: <20110707002034.GA17885@broadcom.com> <20110824222801.GA5280@broadcom.com> <20110824225357.GA2224@suse.de> <20110824231746.GF5280@broadcom.com> <1314230068.15882.15.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20110825004211.GC7577@broadcom.com> <20110825022352.GA4876@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:45:55 -0700 Message-ID: <1314240355.15882.28.camel@Joe-Laptop> (sfid-20110825_044611_738996_0B087519) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 19:23 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 05:42:11PM -0700, Henry Ptasinski wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 04:54:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 16:17 -0700, Henry Ptasinski wrote: > > > > Augh. I included the wrong link. Correct link: > > > > http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/brcm80211?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=0001-wireless-testing-add-brcm80211-v2.patch > > > > > > Can't you post the patch with git format-patch -M instead? > > > > This patch drops in a new copy of all the files, as there's been significant > > change since the last time staging-next and wireless-testing were in sync. > > (Deleting the existing files from staging will be a separate step.) > > > > I can generate a two-patch series instead: one to catch up wireless-testing > > with all the changes that have been applied to the brcm80211 drivers in > > staging, and then a second patch with a 'git mv' plus necessary > > Kconfig/Makefile changes. The first patch would still be quite large, but I'm > > ok with either approach. > Don't worry about that now, the real thing is a review of the code. A 2.8MB patch is _way_ too large to review. The reviewing should take place of posted patches to staging, not wireless-testing. And I believe that's not an RFC patch, but the actual patch to be applied. If so, I think that the right way to do that is not copy but a merge.