From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: Please pull upstream-fixes branch of wireless-2.6 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:03 +0200 Message-ID: <200604201051.03881.mb@bu3sch.de> References: <20060420011232.GA9268@tuxdriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1423931.dKqH8lOSqi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:34745 "EHLO bu3sch.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbWDTIrW (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:47:22 -0400 To: "John W. Linville" In-Reply-To: <20060420011232.GA9268@tuxdriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --nextPart1423931.dKqH8lOSqi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 20 April 2006 03:12, John W. Linville wrote: > bcm43xx: fix dyn tssi2dbm memleak > bcm43xx: fix pctl slowclock limit calculation > bcm43xx: sysfs code cleanup These are already in -mm and on their way into linus's tree. Is it possible to cause problems? If not, fine. If yes, we need some clearly defined rules where to put patches and a clearly defined statement of how often patches are pushed upstream. =2D-=20 Greetings Michael. --nextPart1423931.dKqH8lOSqi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBER0t3lb09HEdWDKgRAoPPAJ4i5xvIHhnwdDqLxAN3WJxxFw5iDgCbBjEd W1CN8ropucjhr9omGYCQMN0= =ch/K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1423931.dKqH8lOSqi--