Hi Jiri, > this will most likely be unpopular, but it was a thing that needed to > be done to make mac80211 tree manageable again. Why unpopular? The general reaction I've seen (and I second) was "awesome" :) > Creating the up-dev branch meant modifying all mac80211 patches in > wireless-dev, as they sit on top of Johannes' restructuring patches > now. Whee :) > I started to do the same with cfg80211 and nl80211 patches but it > turned out that many cfg/nl80211 commits overwrite each other as the > interface was evolving and being rewritten. So I decided to throw away > the history and make a patch (surprisingly, it's quite a nice and > relatively small patch in the end) that brings cfg80211/nl80211 to the > state in which it was when mac80211 was merged to vanilla. Patches that > were committed afterwards are committed separately on the top of it. Sounds good to me. It was changing quite a bit at the time, yeah. It'll probably continue to do so if somebody works on it again... > What are the advantages? > - Johannes' restructuring patches go in. > - We have patches prepared for merging of wireless-dev into vanilla. > - mac80211 patches can go to vanilla and will appear automatically and > correctly in wireless-dev. Cool > [In fact, I'd like more another approach but I'm not sure how feasible > it is: apply mac80211 drivers to a separate branch than mac80211 in > wireless-dev and pull both of them into a common branch. That way I'd be > able to rebase mac80211 tree to keep mac80211 patches always on the top > (and modify them gradually as fixes, especially to 11n and WMM, > appear). The big disadvantage is that pulling from wireless-dev would > become much harder.] Actually, that just means that John has to pull both mac80211 and drivers into master everytime he updates one of them. Or something. Good job! johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
