Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:21 -0500, pat-lkml wrote: >> Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:44 -0500, pat-lkml wrote: >>>> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock. Update crda to the new names >>>> and add #define for libnl-1.1. >>> But libnl-2.0 comes with a define too: >>> #define nl_handle nl_sock >>> >>> you just need to include the right headers, no? >>> >>> johannes >> dunno.... but I can't find it: >> >> libnl $ egrep "#define nl_handle" * -r >> libnl $ git pull >> Already up-to-date. > > Ah. Grr. Just recently removed. > > johannes Which leads back around to my question, should I continue pushing patches like this your way (after making sure the right patch is on the right e-mail with the right description), or do we want to wait and I'll just maintain the patches outside of git, and push them once libnl-2.0 hits? On one hand, it makes testing both versions easier, on the other, it makes a lot of little 'fix' commits like this. I have no issues maintaining these sorts of patches, but I don't want to do it if you don't want them. Pat -- 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
