On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 16:20 +0100, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> I am currently working on the fixes for rt2x00, the above patches look very
> good,
> and also provide me with a chance to cleanup some garbage in rt2x00. :)
> I'll make the patches for this part of my patch series which I will send to
>
On Friday 03 November 2006 05:15, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 01:46:31AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, that one was wrong. But what is it doing in the public API? We need
> > > to remove it from the public API and leave struct net_device *dev as the
> > > paramete
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 01:46 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> d80211-reduce-mdev.patch
> d80211-ethtool.patch
> d80211-cookie.patch
G, whitespace damaged. I swear I'm going to submit a s/ {8}/\t/
patch some of these days. wiggle should handle that just fine, and
personally, I have reached a point
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 21:28 -0500, Michael Wu wrote:
> That's because TX might fail for reasons other than not getting an ACK. I
> can't say I've actually seen this happen, so it might just be something left
> over from tulip that doesn't need to be there now. (or perhaps it only
> happens when
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 23:15 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> 403 Forbidden (shouldn't that be Verboten? :-)
Nah, that's ok, that particular Apache instance is running in London,
UK :)
Fixed, sorry about that, I don't usually allow directory listing in that
hierarchy and forgot to enable it (so y
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 01:46:31AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > Ok, that one was wrong. But what is it doing in the public API? We need
> > to remove it from the public API and leave struct net_device *dev as the
> > parameter. adm8211 actually uses it and increases the tx_fifo_error
> > coun
On Thursday 02 November 2006 19:22, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Ok, that one was wrong. But what is it doing in the public API? We need
> to remove it from the public API and leave struct net_device *dev as the
> parameter. adm8211 actually uses it and increases the tx_fifo_error
> counter, but that's a
> Ok, that one was wrong. But what is it doing in the public API? We need
> to remove it from the public API and leave struct net_device *dev as the
> parameter. adm8211 actually uses it and increases the tx_fifo_error
> counter, but that's a bit strange.
Fixed, and since, as always, netdev doesn
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 00:09 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> /* Return a pointer to network statistics data area for the given device. */
> -void * ieee80211_dev_stats(struct net_device *dev);
> +void *ieee80211_dev_stats(struct ieee80211_local *ieee80211_ptr);
Ok, that one was wrong. But what is i
