linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-next tree with the net-next tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:12:29 -0600
From:	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-next tree with the net-next
 tree

On 01/04/2012 09:04 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-next tree got a conflict in
> drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/dma.c between commit 3db1cd5c05f3 ("net:
> fix assignment of 0/1 to bool variables") from the net-next tree and
> commit 5d07a3d62f63 ("b43legacy: Avoid packet losses in the dma worker
> code") from the wireless-next tree.
>
> Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.

Is there a good explanation why changes in wireless drivers are sent to 
net-next, and not wireless-testing? If that were stopped, this kind of conflict 
would be avoided.

Larry

--
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/