Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 31 August 2006 02:57, Larry Finger wrote: >> >> +#if WIRELESS_EXT > 20 >> +#define IW_ESSID_FIX 0 >> +#else >> +#define IW_ESSID_FIX 1 >> +#endif > > Eh, was this useless #if in the original patch I signed-off, too? > Because I want to revert my sign-off. :) > This #if is useless, because we always deal with only one single > WE version in the kernel. #if WIRELESS_EXT will always be true. > So remove this and also remove the other #if below. >
Yes, it was. I saw this, but left it in because I cannot control the inclusion of the other patch that brings the NET components up to WE-21, and it seemed that the behavior could be wrong if the kernel were at WE-20. I'm quite certain that the patch will _NOT_ be included in 2.6.18 as it is clearly not a bug fix. Once I see WE-21 in the kernel, I'll remove these #ifdef's and eliminate IW_ESSID_FIX. If I missed something, please let me know, and I'll resubmit the patch now. John, have you merged, or do you plan to merge, "[PATCH 2.6.18] WE-21 support (core API)" into wireless-2.6? Larry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
