Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59021 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750734AbaLaNK2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:10:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:10:24 +0100 (CET) From: Jiri Kosina To: Arend van Spriel cc: Linus Torvalds , Borislav Petkov , "Grumbach, Emmanuel" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "egrumbach@gmail.com" , "peter@hurleysoftware.com" , "ilw@linux.intel.com" , "Berg, Johannes" , Larry Finger Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable" In-Reply-To: <54A3D955.6020809@broadcom.com> Message-ID: (sfid-20141231_141054_675659_9DA64C9D) References: <54A2B807.1020202@hurleysoftware.com> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB31B5DC915@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> <1419971304.30412.0.camel@egrumbacBox> <20141230212326.GA29263@pd.tnic> <54A328C2.5080606@lwfinger.net> <54A3D955.6020809@broadcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote: > You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless maintainers > think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for > consideration.". However, you did not wait for any response from the > wireless maintainers nor from the author of the patch you are reverting. > Seems like an overreaction to me though personally I do not disgree with > the revert itself. My understanding from the whole thread was that Emmanuel disagrees with the revert, and I consider Emmanuel to definitely belong to the "wireless maintainers" group. If my understanding was wrong on this, sorry for that. One way or another, the revert really is a-must-have, as it causes visible userspace regressions. I am really surprised that it's causing so lively discussion and doubts. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs