[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1412311408090.31609@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:10:24 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"egrumbach@...il.com" <egrumbach@...il.com>,
"peter@...leysoftware.com" <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
"ilw@...ux.intel.com" <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
"Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility
unselectable"
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless maintainers
> think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
> consideration.". However, you did not wait for any response from the
> wireless maintainers nor from the author of the patch you are reverting.
> Seems like an overreaction to me though personally I do not disgree with
> the revert itself.
My understanding from the whole thread was that Emmanuel disagrees with
the revert, and I consider Emmanuel to definitely belong to the "wireless
maintainers" group. If my understanding was wrong on this, sorry for that.
One way or another, the revert really is a-must-have, as it causes visible
userspace regressions. I am really surprised that it's causing so lively
discussion and doubts.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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