On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 08:51 -0800, John W. Linville wrote: > 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. :-) > Thank you for the advise and I will try my best to make sure not happen again :-) Thanks Wey -- 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
