On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:58:53AM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
>
> I remembert that Adrian had some comments on the fact that
> CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXT was a 'visible' option, and wanted it to be
> invisible. I told him to go ahead with the patch, so you may want to
> ask him for all the detai
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:57:24PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:48:15PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, jt wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk wrote :
> > > >
> > > > Using WIRELESS_EXT instead of CONFIG_NET_RADIO is simply ugly.
> >
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:48:15PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, jt wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote :
> > >
> > > Using WIRELESS_EXT instead of CONFIG_NET_RADIO is simply ugly.
> >
> > You are probably right that something need to be done about
> > it,
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:48:15PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, jt wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote :
> > >
> > > Using WIRELESS_EXT instead of CONFIG_NET_RADIO is simply ugly.
> >
> > You are probably right that something need to be done about
> > it,
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, jt wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote :
> >
> > Using WIRELESS_EXT instead of CONFIG_NET_RADIO is simply ugly.
>
> You are probably right that something need to be done about
> it, but I believe this is the wrong direction. I would prefer you to
> replace W
Adrian Bunk wrote :
>
> Using WIRELESS_EXT instead of CONFIG_NET_RADIO is simply ugly.
Sorry, but I did not see this e-mail in my inbox. Maybe my
spam filter is too agressive. I would prefer that to the
alternative...
You are probably right that something need to be done about
it
Using WIRELESS_EXT instead of CONFIG_NET_RADIO is simply ugly.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/core/dev.c | 10 --
net/core/net-sysfs.c |8
net/socket.c |9 +++--
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.
