On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:51 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > But this is a new feature, and a new command, so I don't quite > > > > understand why an application would think it can send it without the > > > > interval? > > > > > > Oh wait, I guess you're right, or this should just be part of patch 1 > > > instead so we never have the feature without the requirement to have the > > > interval given. > > > > Yeah, I could squish this with the previous patch (1/3), but I just > > reckoned that patch was getting too big, so I decided to make a separate > > one. > > > > If this whole patch series is taken at the same time, I guess there > > won't be backwards compatibility problems (except for bisecting, > > maybe?). > > > > Anyways, I'll leave it as your choice. Squishing the patch is easy > > enough. ;) > > Ah, and one more thought... There's no driver implementing this at this > point, so is there anything to really worry about? Yeah, good point, no big deal. We can keep it -- I just didn't even understand why Ben thought it would not be compatible but it makes sense if you just look at the patch by itself. johannes -- 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
