[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <477F20668A386D41ADCC57781B1F70430D1432F950@SC-VEXCH1.marvell.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:44:51 -0800
From: Bing Zhao <bzhao@...vell.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Avinash Patil <patila@...vell.com>,
Kiran Divekar <dkiran@...vell.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: RE: [ 014/128] mwifiex: wakeup and stop multiple tx queues in
net_device
Hi Ben,
> > Right, I've managed to pick up 3 changes to mwifiex that it looks like I
> > shouldn't have included. Firstly:
> >
> > 9c969d8ccb1e mwifiex: check wait_event_interruptible return value
> >
> > This had "3.6+" to the left of <stable@...r.kernel.org>, whereas I
> > expect version qualifiers to be on the right. So my import script just
> > put this in the queue without asking me to interpret the version
> > qualifier. (I don't automate *that* because people use too wide a
> > variety of syntaxes.)
>
> Sorry. From now on I will put version qualifiers on the right side of <stable@...r...>
I forgot to mention that the upstream patch "9c969d8ccb1e mwifiex: check wait_event_interruptible return value" is also needed for 3.2-stable, and your backport patch [016/128] is correct.
The reason I put "3.6+" instead of "3.2+" for stable is that the upstream patch cannot apply cleanly against kernel versions older than 3.6. It must be back ported.
Thanks,
Bing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists