On 01/25/2012 02:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm told that my patches languish because they are for 2.6.39.4 (or whatever)
and I'm encouraged to go to a newer kernel... but I can't because all of the churn with the ath9k goes untested and tends to be extremely destabilizing to the ath5k drivers.
Hence I'm *forced* to use the 2.6.39.x if I want a machine that even boots. Ironically, my patches are being held back because they're not sufficiently
'vetted', but the reason they aren't vetted is because I can't even get a box to boot with other people's insufficiently vetted ath-common changes!
Right, this sounds familiar, except it's with e/glibc stuff. No one much has tested it because it's not in SVN, etc. Moreover, it doesn't affect most users, and without them, e/glibc doesn't work at all. I'm more than willing to take responsibility for this stuff. Exactly how that gets done doesn't bother me very much, since every project is different anyway, only that is a defined path for it getting in at some point. By comparison, I've had Mozilla patches languish for several *years*. Other than that, I'm going a great deal of work testing/using ar71xx, although it's small stuff all over the place. Some of this certainly isn't suitable for mainstream code (much of it I've posted as patches anyway), but I think it likely people would be interested anyway. _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
