Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:58013 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932097Ab2DZSro (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:47:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:41:50 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: David Miller Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: pull request: wireless-next 2012-04-25 Message-ID: <20120426184150.GG16900@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20120426_204802_437250_17952BA3) References: <20120425191418.GC16900@tuxdriver.com> <20120425.163926.2209040699696617525.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20120425.163926.2209040699696617525.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:39:26PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: "John W. Linville" > Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:14:19 -0400 > > > This is another batch of updates intended for 3.5... > ... > > Please let me know if there are problems! > > There are: > > From 792545c7bc5d6b922d3778dc602e557d64c83551 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:55:48 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 88/88] libertas: include sched.h on firmware.c > > Do not assume we have our subsystem including this for us, > at least for older kernels this is not true. Lets just be > explicit about this requirement for the usage of wake_up(). > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez > Signed-off-by: John W. Linville > > This is bogus, wake_up() is defined in linux/wait.h, the whole > point of the linux/sched.h split up is so that linux/sched.h > includes could be removed and replaced with actual dependencies. This is completely my bad. Anyway, Felix already added that include in that file a few lines later in order to pick-up the definitions for TASK_NORMAL and TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. I'll just drop Luis's patch. > Also, please don't accept any patches from Luis that add those > #undef pr_fmt things to the atheros drivers. > > He tried to add it an ethernet driver, and I asked him to explain > exactly why he's doing and that if it's appropriate then it's > appropriate everywhere not just in a few specific drivers. He failed > to respond to me, and therefore failed to explain the situation and > address my concerned. And then I saw just today that he's submitting > the same patch to wireless drivers. That's not acceptable. > > Thanks. OK. I think the compat-wireless guys have found a different solution anyway. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.