> So I tested this one, not the one from libertas-dev (which was posted > a day earlier). And this one seems fine. Ack for commit to > libertas-2.6. Hmm, for the patch you just "acked" inofficially is already older. I know at least two changes that I made since then: * add a comment to the section where I change the basic rates by setting the high bit (your idea) * adapt to the patch "ibertas: separate mesh connectivity from that of the main interface" that appeared in wireless-2.6/everything Please note that my current patch doesn't apply anymore to wireless-2.6/everything (a.k.a wl26e). It might still apply to libertas-2.6, because this tree lacked (four hours ago) at least 4 patches that are in wl26e. >From the 40 mails about git, commits, patches, rebases etc I was not able to draw a real conclusion. I'm tending towards basing my patches against wl26e, so that John, Jeff etc can push the patches easily up. And if a patch still applies, I can commit/push the patch once you acked them. If the patch doesn't apply there, I'll post about this face in libertas-dev. I hope that helps all sides the most. > Would you like me to confirm on SDIO? Yes, please. I think the patch is hardware agnistic, but you can never know because SDIO firmware != CF firmware != USB firmware. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
