On Tuesday 18 July 2006 19:36, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 July 2006 18:57, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:54:33 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > This patch makes sleeping in the hw->config callback possible
> > > by removing the only atomic caller. The atomic caller was
>
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 18:57, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:54:33 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > This patch makes sleeping in the hw->config callback possible
> > by removing the only atomic caller. The atomic caller was
> > a timer and is replaced by a workqueue.
>
> This is a modi
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:54:33 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> This patch makes sleeping in the hw->config callback possible
> by removing the only atomic caller. The atomic caller was
> a timer and is replaced by a workqueue.
This is a modified version of the patch that doesn't use
cancel_rearming_d
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 18:53, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:54:33 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Please apply this to wireless-dev.
> > Note that this is the second try to submit this patch.
> > The first try contained a little bug. I'm sorry for that.
> > If you already applied th
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:54:33 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Please apply this to wireless-dev.
> Note that this is the second try to submit this patch.
> The first try contained a little bug. I'm sorry for that.
> If you already applied the first one, I can provide an incremental patch.
>
> Note2
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 11:31, you wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:11:27 +0200
> Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But I think the following is also broken in the old code:
> > A wq is not pending anymore, but just executing (before it reschedules
> > itself).
> > I think that would
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:11:27 +0200
Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I think the following is also broken in the old code:
> A wq is not pending anymore, but just executing (before it reschedules
> itself).
> I think that would also loop forever. I don't think that's what we want.
>
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 06:25, you wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:54:33 +0200
> Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please apply this to wireless-dev.
> > Note that this is the second try to submit this patch.
> > The first try contained a little bug. I'm sorry for that.
> > If you al
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:54:33 +0200
Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please apply this to wireless-dev.
> Note that this is the second try to submit this patch.
> The first try contained a little bug. I'm sorry for that.
> If you already applied the first one, I can provide an incrementa
Hi John,
Please apply this to wireless-dev.
Note that this is the second try to submit this patch.
The first try contained a little bug. I'm sorry for that.
If you already applied the first one, I can provide an incremental patch.
Note2 that this patch depends on the
[PATCH] cancel_rearming_delay
10 matches
Mail list logo