On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 07:15:27AM -0800, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote: > On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 07:44 -0800, John W. Linville wrote: > > Are the bits in the wireless tree correct? If so, then please just > > send a patch to fix the wireless-next tree. > > > > Now that the kernel.org mess is sorted, I guess we/I need to go back > > to pulling your trees instead of applying patches... > > > "wireless" tree is correct, the piece is missing in iwl-mac80211.c on > "wireless-next" tree. Nikolay's patch fix it. > > The question I have is what is the right way to deal with this. the > orig. patch need to be backport to stable, but the function was move to > different file short before the patch. That is the reason cause this > mess :-) Once it has made it to Linus, you can send a patch for stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx referencing the commit ID in Linus' tree. If you mean that the change needs to go to wireless but the function has moved in wireless-next, then post the patch for wireless. Usually I can figure-out the merge (although apparently not in this case). If you think the merge will be tricky, you can send a reference patch for wireless-next for me to use as a guide when fixing-up the merge. Or you can pull your fixes tree into your -next tree, resolve the merge conflict, and ask me to pull. Or you can wait until the merge breakage happens, and send a patch. :-) Hth! John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- 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
