> I don't get your point. The patch I submitted fixes an Ooops in the > driver, due to wrong handling of an API. What does that have to do with > principle discussions about the frameworks in use? I asked if there is a better method, and you said that you would test a better solution. That means that someone else should make a better solution. I just pointed out that I won't be the one who creates the better solution, because for fundamental reasons I don't see the libertas+cfg80211 approach going forward. That issue has nothing to do with you or your patch, so please don't feel offended or confused. Basically, I neither ack nor nak you patch. Given that it fixes an oops the patch should go in, and probably to stable at well. I just gave a hint, to make you think if you could come up with something better. BTW, testing/fixing of failure paths in libertas as well as simplifying the call sequence of functions during initialisation could be quite useful. -- 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
