| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:30:44 +0200 From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com> To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> CC: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: Get rid of superfluous call to pci_disable_msi() Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> writes: >> Well, as this series is small I thought it could quickly go thru your >> tree. But since ipr had conflicts, there is no point routing all patches >> altogether, so up to you guys. The wil6210 patch is already in your pci/msi >> branch though. > > It's in pci/msi, but that's not in my -next branch yet, so I can > easily drop it. Do drivers/net/wireless patches normally follow a > different path than the other drivers/net patches? The wil6210 and > ath10k patches look just like the others in the 34-patch series (bnx2, > bnx2x, tg3, bna, cxgb3, etc.), so I thought it would make more sense > to include them there. ath10k patches normally go through my ath.git tree to Linville and then to David Miller. To avoid conflicts I would prefer to take ath10k patches to my tree whenever possible. -- Kalle Valo -- 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