On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 12:04 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > As expected I was able to reproduce the warning with atht5k and ath9k > on 2.6.30. I did not get a crash with ath9k though, which is good. But > the warning is still present. > > Do we want to fix this for stable? If so is the patch I posted reasonable? Which patch are you talking about now? This disassociate one? If yes, I think I'd prefer to have mine so we don't diverge much and I can still remember what's going on where :) johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
