[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081027204249.GA1620@ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:42:50 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl, rodriguez@...eros.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: fix regression caused by regulatory config
option
On Sun 2008-10-26 21:22:16, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 13:18 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > Is it common practice to have compatibility options default to
> > > "y"? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just wondering if it has been
> > > traditionally?
> >
> > yes
> >
> > default should be "keep working as before"
> >
> > it's not always nice, especially if you're trying to get rid of some
> > nasty stuff, but think of it this way: you should be able to use a
> > new kernel on an existing distro, at least for a reasonable type of
> > distro (eg something shipped in, say, the last 2 years). In this case:
> > even Fedora 10 is not likely to work!
>
> Well, actually, it _ought_ to work fine, with a smaller set of channels,
Really? It will still break if your AP uses one of those channels, right?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists