From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40913 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755072Ab0C3RJp (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:09:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/wireless/libertas: do not call wiphy_unregister() w/o wiphy_register() From: Dan Williams To: Holger Schurig Cc: Daniel Mack , libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" In-Reply-To: <201003301259.23973.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> References: <1269875658-3324-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> <201003301149.13462.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <20100330105029.GO30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de> <201003301259.23973.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:04:33 -0700 Message-ID: <1269968673.3019.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 12:59 +0200, Holger Schurig wrote: > > I don't get your point. The patch I submitted fixes an Ooops in the > > driver, due to wrong handling of an API. What does that have to do with > > principle discussions about the frameworks in use? > > I asked if there is a better method, and you said that you would test a better > solution. That means that someone else should make a better solution. > > I just pointed out that I won't be the one who creates the better solution, > because for fundamental reasons I don't see the libertas+cfg80211 approach > going forward. That issue has nothing to do with you or your patch, so please > don't feel offended or confused. Fine; just rip out the mesh code and do the vanilla cfg80211 conversion for infra & adhoc, and we'll add the mesh code back later. I don't have time to do the cfg80211 bits, neither do the OLPC guys (AFAIK), so lets take advantage of your willingness to do this and just move the driver forward. Dan > > Basically, I neither ack nor nak you patch. Given that it fixes an oops the > patch should go in, and probably to stable at well. I just gave a hint, to > make you think if you could come up with something better. > > > > BTW, testing/fixing of failure paths in libertas as well as simplifying the > call sequence of functions during initialisation could be quite useful. > > _______________________________________________ > libertas-dev mailing list > libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/libertas-dev From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/wireless/libertas: do not call wiphy_unregister() w/o wiphy_register() Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:04:33 -0700 Message-ID: <1269968673.3019.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1269875658-3324-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> <201003301149.13462.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <20100330105029.GO30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de> <201003301259.23973.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Mack , libertas-dev-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "John W. Linville" To: Holger Schurig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201003301259.23973.hs4233-x6+DxXLjN1AJvtFkdXX2Hg4jNU5vUVPG@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 12:59 +0200, Holger Schurig wrote: > > I don't get your point. The patch I submitted fixes an Ooops in the > > driver, due to wrong handling of an API. What does that have to do with > > principle discussions about the frameworks in use? > > I asked if there is a better method, and you said that you would test a better > solution. That means that someone else should make a better solution. > > I just pointed out that I won't be the one who creates the better solution, > because for fundamental reasons I don't see the libertas+cfg80211 approach > going forward. That issue has nothing to do with you or your patch, so please > don't feel offended or confused. Fine; just rip out the mesh code and do the vanilla cfg80211 conversion for infra & adhoc, and we'll add the mesh code back later. I don't have time to do the cfg80211 bits, neither do the OLPC guys (AFAIK), so lets take advantage of your willingness to do this and just move the driver forward. Dan > > Basically, I neither ack nor nak you patch. Given that it fixes an oops the > patch should go in, and probably to stable at well. I just gave a hint, to > make you think if you could come up with something better. > > > > BTW, testing/fixing of failure paths in libertas as well as simplifying the > call sequence of functions during initialisation could be quite useful. > > _______________________________________________ > libertas-dev mailing list > libertas-dev-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/libertas-dev -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html