On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Bruno Randolf <br1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > as i said, in my point of view ath5k has several problems right now >>>> > (performace and stability), and i guess nobody will be using it seriously >>>> > in actual production use (does anyone?). > > Yes, people do use ath5k in production. Some large companies. > >>>> 2.6.32 will be used by a lot of "enterprise" releases, I'd prefer >>>> connection stability fixes do indeed go in for 2.6.32 for ath5k > >>> sure, as i said, i don't mind. :) >> >> Alright lets skip stable for this. > > Wow this whole line of conversation is confusing :) Hehe. sorry well I was talking to Bruno about the "stable" qualifications of this fix, and it doesn't fix an oops or serious bug, but it certainly can improve performance but I haven't myself seen numbers and would hate to justify just about pushing anything upstream. > If this fixes a calibration bug it needs to go to stable. Perhaps a little more elaboration on the commit log on the impact and how this helps and how much would help. Luis -- 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
