All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	<linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless tree with the wireless-current tree
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:10:18 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110928091018.GC2758@jouni.qca.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110928131917.fe58aa3efa5549a9b3a6e3da@canb.auug.org.au>

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 01:19:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless tree got a conflict in
> net/wireless/nl80211.c between commit 1b9ca0272ffa ("cfg80211: Fix
> validation of AKM suites") from the wireless-current tree and commit
> 6d30240e3d68 ("cfg80211: Remove strict validation of AKM suites") from
> the wireless tree.
> 
> The latter seems to make the former partly unneccessary, so I used that
> (see below).

The former was a semi-urgent bug fix which was the reason for pushing it
out more quickly. The latter does indeed remove half of the fix (the
wrong count used in the for loop), but the first part to validate
n_akm_suites is still needed. As long as you kept that from the former,
the latter one should indeed be used. These commits should apply cleanly
on top of each other when applied, but I'm not sure how that ends up
being handled for linux-next.

 
-- 
Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless tree with the wireless-current tree
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:10:18 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110928091018.GC2758@jouni.qca.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110928131917.fe58aa3efa5549a9b3a6e3da@canb.auug.org.au>

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 01:19:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless tree got a conflict in
> net/wireless/nl80211.c between commit 1b9ca0272ffa ("cfg80211: Fix
> validation of AKM suites") from the wireless-current tree and commit
> 6d30240e3d68 ("cfg80211: Remove strict validation of AKM suites") from
> the wireless tree.
> 
> The latter seems to make the former partly unneccessary, so I used that
> (see below).

The former was a semi-urgent bug fix which was the reason for pushing it
out more quickly. The latter does indeed remove half of the fix (the
wrong count used in the for loop), but the first part to validate
n_akm_suites is still needed. As long as you kept that from the former,
the latter one should indeed be used. These commits should apply cleanly
on top of each other when applied, but I'm not sure how that ends up
being handled for linux-next.

 
-- 
Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA

  reply	other threads:[~2011-09-28  9:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-09-28  3:19 linux-next: manual merge of the wireless tree with the wireless-current tree Stephen Rothwell
2011-09-28  9:10 ` Jouni Malinen [this message]
2011-09-28  9:10   ` Jouni Malinen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-09-14  3:05 Stephen Rothwell
2011-06-21  1:49 Stephen Rothwell
2011-06-21 18:05 ` Gustavo F. Padovan
2011-04-05  2:21 Stephen Rothwell
2011-04-05  2:21 Stephen Rothwell
2010-12-14  2:22 Stephen Rothwell
2010-08-30  1:58 Stephen Rothwell
2010-04-09  1:05 Stephen Rothwell
2010-04-07  2:58 Stephen Rothwell
2010-04-07 14:44 ` John W. Linville
2010-04-07 15:31   ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-04-07 23:19   ` David Miller
2010-04-01  1:59 Stephen Rothwell
2010-04-01 11:43 ` John W. Linville
2010-03-11  2:15 Stephen Rothwell
2010-03-11  2:38 ` Bruno Randolf
2010-03-11  3:04   ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-02-23  1:26 Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-24  3:11 Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-24 15:05 ` John W. Linville
2009-07-09  1:40 Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-22  1:32 Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-22 18:23 ` reinette chatre
2009-04-22 18:38   ` John W. Linville
2009-02-19  5:27 Stephen Rothwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110928091018.GC2758@jouni.qca.qualcomm.com \
    --to=jouni@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.