On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 12:59 +0200, Holger Schurig wrote: > > 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. Fine; just rip out the mesh code and do the vanilla cfg80211 conversion for infra & adhoc, and we'll add the mesh code back later. I don't have time to do the cfg80211 bits, neither do the OLPC guys (AFAIK), so lets take advantage of your willingness to do this and just move the driver forward. Dan > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > libertas-dev mailing list > libertas-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/libertas-dev -- 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
