From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Sergio Correia <lists@uece.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-wireless Mailing List <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com>, "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" <ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net>, "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com> Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:29:54 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAMP44s2Un-M2OCmuRQGpGsHR21gH=S7oJKx4Ci8tvYVCCSitUw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20120414094137.54a7f213@stein> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote: > On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I already exemplified how they are very different, but here it goes >> again. The patch "drm/i915: Add lock on drm_helper_resume_force_mode" >> was just tagged in 3.3.2, if I had said yesterday "this patch breaks >> things on my machine", then that patch would have been dropped for >> 3.3.2 even though it's still on mainline--why? Because we know it's >> broken, and broken patches are not supposed to land to stable. But >> today, one day later, we have to wait until it's fixed in master >> first. Why? >> >> What makes a patch droppable yesterday, but dependent on mainline today? > > Huh? > > Because "yesterday" was a review before stable release: > - A buggy mainline release exists. > - No buggy stable release exists. > whereas "today" is after stable release: > - A buggy mainline release exists. > - A buggy stable release exists. IOW; a tag makes undroppable. But *why*? You say you *really* need to problem to fixed in mainline, that's why it cannot be dropped, but that applies also to patches in the queue *before* the tag is made, doesn't it? If you find a patch in the stable review queue causes problems, why don't you leave it there? You *really* need to problem fixed in mainline, don't you? So yesterday the priority is stability > 'upstream first', but today it's 'upstream first' > stability. Nobody has put forward an argument for this shift in priorities--"a tag was made" is not argument. > (The WLAN breakage wich is being talked about was reported after > release, not during review, right?) Yeah, this is a hypothetical thought experiment to demonstrate the shift in priorities. > [quote re-ordered] >> Again, you can repeat the same thing as much as you want, it still >> doesn't answer what I have asked. > > Yeah, sorry for that. All the time I thought you asked why a *revert* > which is applicable to mainline and stable first happens in stable. > > But your question was actually what the difference between > - dropping a patch from a queue of candidate patches versus > - adding a reverting patch to repair a defect from a previous release > is. Yes, that is one of my arguments. > The former is still part of the decision whether a changeset which > exists in mainline should be backported into stable. Somebody initially > thought it should be, but others should have a look too and amend that > decision if need be. Somebody reports that the change would introduce a > regression. Usually, this disqualifies a patch from being applied to > stable right away, without further work having to be done in stable. > > "Drop a stable candidate before release" is a form of "decline a > submission to stable", happening late in the preparations of a stable > release. > > The latter is when damage was done; it is now about bug fixing. This > involves debugging of the regression, finding a right approach to > fix it (e.g. revert), write + review + test + commit the fix, port the fix > to all relevant other kernel branches, review + test + commit those ports > too. Really? So if the patch doesn't make it to stable you don't need to do any of that? IOW; if the patch doesn't make it to stable, it's OK to leave it broken for v3.4? There's 10000 patches in v3.4-rc* that are all about bug fixing, they don't need to go into stable to be fixed, do they? If a non-stable patch needs to be reverted in mainline, it gets reverted in mainline, regardless of weather or not it made it to stable or not. So, the hypothetical patch that was dropped in the stable review queue yesterday has to be fixed in mainline too, just like the hypothetical patch that made it to stable and was found problematic today has to be fixed in mainline. Again, what makes a released patch undroppable? It's not the bug fixing; weather or not it gets into stable, it still has to be fixed in mainline. > "Add a reverting fix" is a form of "add a fix". > > You are indeed pointing to a procedural flaw here. In "add a fix" cases, > stable release procedures ensure that if 3.3.3 included the revert, 3.4 > will include it to, by the Linus->Greg order of commiting patches. But in > the "drop a candidate before release" case, Greg and the stable reviewers > do not have a similarly fool-proof procedure to ensure that the next branch > point will be free of the regression. Now they need to watch closely that > a fix gets into mainline ideally before the next branch point is going to > be released. I don't see the procedural flaw here. There's 10000 patches that never go through the stable review process, and they don't need to. Somehow v3.4 will be relatively OK. So the dropped patches from the stable review queue will just receive the same treatment as any other patch. Just by going through the stable review process the patch already received more eyes to make the bugs more shallow. There might be a lot of trees out there where people pick patches from mainline, and they don't *need* to follow the "upstream first" rule, by reviewing the patch, and maybe even testing it, and then reporting the problem, they are helping getting it fixed for v3.4. You don't *need* to keep the patch in the stable review queue, you don't *need* to make a stable release with it in order to ensure that it will fixed in mainline, the information about the patch problems is not lost. Seems to me you are abusing the 'stable' branch as a bug tracking system for certain patches for the next release. > So there is indeed a difficulty involved with dropping patches from the > candidate queue. Fortunately, it is not necessary to subject post-release > reverts to the same difficulty. It's the other way around. -- Felipe Contreras
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:29:54 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAMP44s2Un-M2OCmuRQGpGsHR21gH=S7oJKx4Ci8tvYVCCSitUw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20120414094137.54a7f213@stein> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote: > On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I already exemplified how they are very different, but here it goes >> again. The patch "drm/i915: Add lock on drm_helper_resume_force_mode" >> was just tagged in 3.3.2, if I had said yesterday "this patch breaks >> things on my machine", then that patch would have been dropped for >> 3.3.2 even though it's still on mainline--why? Because we know it's >> broken, and broken patches are not supposed to land to stable. But >> today, one day later, we have to wait until it's fixed in master >> first. Why? >> >> What makes a patch droppable yesterday, but dependent on mainline today? > > Huh? > > Because "yesterday" was a review before stable release: > ?- A buggy mainline release exists. > ?- No buggy stable release exists. > whereas "today" is after stable release: > ?- A buggy mainline release exists. > ?- A buggy stable release exists. IOW; a tag makes undroppable. But *why*? You say you *really* need to problem to fixed in mainline, that's why it cannot be dropped, but that applies also to patches in the queue *before* the tag is made, doesn't it? If you find a patch in the stable review queue causes problems, why don't you leave it there? You *really* need to problem fixed in mainline, don't you? So yesterday the priority is stability > 'upstream first', but today it's 'upstream first' > stability. Nobody has put forward an argument for this shift in priorities--"a tag was made" is not argument. > (The WLAN breakage wich is being talked about was reported after > release, not during review, right?) Yeah, this is a hypothetical thought experiment to demonstrate the shift in priorities. > [quote re-ordered] >> Again, you can repeat the same thing as much as you want, it still >> doesn't answer what I have asked. > > Yeah, sorry for that. ?All the time I thought you asked why a *revert* > which is applicable to mainline and stable first happens in stable. > > But your question was actually what the difference between > ?- dropping a patch from a queue of candidate patches versus > ?- adding a reverting patch to repair a defect from a previous release > is. Yes, that is one of my arguments. > The former is still part of the decision whether a changeset which > exists in mainline should be backported into stable. ?Somebody initially > thought it should be, but others should have a look too and amend that > decision if need be. ?Somebody reports that the change would introduce a > regression. ?Usually, this disqualifies a patch from being applied to > stable right away, without further work having to be done in stable. > > "Drop a stable candidate before release" is a form of "decline a > submission to stable", happening late in the preparations of a stable > release. > > The latter is when damage was done; it is now about bug fixing. ?This > involves debugging of the regression, finding a right approach to > fix it (e.g. revert), write + review + test + commit the fix, port the fix > to all relevant other kernel branches, review + test + commit those ports > too. Really? So if the patch doesn't make it to stable you don't need to do any of that? IOW; if the patch doesn't make it to stable, it's OK to leave it broken for v3.4? There's 10000 patches in v3.4-rc* that are all about bug fixing, they don't need to go into stable to be fixed, do they? If a non-stable patch needs to be reverted in mainline, it gets reverted in mainline, regardless of weather or not it made it to stable or not. So, the hypothetical patch that was dropped in the stable review queue yesterday has to be fixed in mainline too, just like the hypothetical patch that made it to stable and was found problematic today has to be fixed in mainline. Again, what makes a released patch undroppable? It's not the bug fixing; weather or not it gets into stable, it still has to be fixed in mainline. > "Add a reverting fix" is a form of "add a fix". > > You are indeed pointing to a procedural flaw here. ?In "add a fix" cases, > stable release procedures ensure that if 3.3.3 included the revert, 3.4 > will include it to, by the Linus->Greg order of commiting patches. But in > the "drop a candidate before release" case, Greg and the stable reviewers > do not have a similarly fool-proof procedure to ensure that the next branch > point will be free of the regression. ?Now they need to watch closely that > a fix gets into mainline ideally before the next branch point is going to > be released. I don't see the procedural flaw here. There's 10000 patches that never go through the stable review process, and they don't need to. Somehow v3.4 will be relatively OK. So the dropped patches from the stable review queue will just receive the same treatment as any other patch. Just by going through the stable review process the patch already received more eyes to make the bugs more shallow. There might be a lot of trees out there where people pick patches from mainline, and they don't *need* to follow the "upstream first" rule, by reviewing the patch, and maybe even testing it, and then reporting the problem, they are helping getting it fixed for v3.4. You don't *need* to keep the patch in the stable review queue, you don't *need* to make a stable release with it in order to ensure that it will fixed in mainline, the information about the patch problems is not lost. Seems to me you are abusing the 'stable' branch as a bug tracking system for certain patches for the next release. > So there is indeed a difficulty involved with dropping patches from the > candidate queue. ?Fortunately, it is not necessary to subject post-release > reverts to the same difficulty. It's the other way around. -- Felipe Contreras
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-14 15:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 270+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-04-11 23:11 [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 01/78] x86 bpf_jit: fix a bug in emitting the 16-bit immediate operand of AND Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 02/78] via-rhine: fix wait-bit inversion Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 03/78] tg3: Fix 5717 serdes powerdown problem Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 04/78] sky2: dont overwrite settings for PHY Quick link Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 05/78] rose_dev: fix memcpy-bug in rose_set_mac_address Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 06/78] net: usb: cdc_eem: fix mtu Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 07/78] Fix non TBI PHY access; a bad merge undid bug fix in a previous commit Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 08/78] ALSA: hda/realtek - Fix ADC assignment with a shared HP/Mic pin Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 09/78] ASoC: wm8994: Update WM8994 DCS calibration Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 10/78] mtd: ixp4xx: oops in ixp4xx_flash_probe Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 11/78] mtd: mips: lantiq: reintroduce support for cmdline partitions Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 12/78] mtd: nand: gpmi: use correct member for checking NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 13/78] mtd: sst25l: initialize writebufsize Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 14/78] mtd: doc2001plus: " Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 15/78] mtd: doc2000: " Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 16/78] mtd: doc2001: " Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 17/78] mtd: docg3: " Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 18/78] mtd: block2mtd: " Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 19/78] mtd: lart: " Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 20/78] mtd: m25p80: set writebufsize Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 21/78] ACPI: Do cpufreq clamping for throttling per package v2 Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 22/78] PNPACPI: Fix device ref leaking in acpi_pnp_match Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 23/78] ACPICA: Fix regression in FADT revision checks Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 24/78] modpost: fix ALL_INIT_DATA_SECTIONS Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 25/78] genirq: Adjust irq thread affinity on IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY return value Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 26/78] tracing: Fix ftrace stack trace entries Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 27/78] tracing: Fix ent_size in trace output Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 28/78] m68k/mac: Add missing platform check before registering platform devices Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 29/78] mac80211: fix possible tid_rx->reorder_timer use after free Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 30/78] rtlwifi: rtl8192ce: rtl8192cu: rtl8192de: Fix low-gain setting when scanning Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 31/78] ath9k: fix max noise floor threshold Greg KH 2012-04-14 5:36 ` Ben Hutchings 2012-04-14 6:26 ` Rajkumar Manoharan 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 32/78] drm: Validate requested virtual size against allocated fb size Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 33/78] drm/radeon/kms: fix fans after resume Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 34/78] drm/i915: no-lvds quirk on MSI DC500 Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 35/78] drm/i915: treat src w & h as fixed point in sprite handling code Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 36/78] drm/i915: Sanitize BIOS debugging bits from PIPECONF Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 37/78] drm/i915: Add lock on drm_helper_resume_force_mode Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 38/78] drm/i915: quirk away broken OpRegion VBT Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 39/78] firmware_class: Rework usermodehelper check Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 40/78] firmware_class: Split _request_firmware() into three functions, v2 Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:10 ` [ 41/78] firmware_class: Do not warn that system is not ready from async loads Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 42/78] PM / Runtime: dont forget to wake up waitqueue on failure Greg KH 2012-04-14 5:23 ` Ben Hutchings 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 43/78] PM / Hibernate: Disable usermode helpers right before freezing tasks Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 44/78] PM / Sleep: Move disabling of usermode helpers to the freezer Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 45/78] PM / Sleep: Mitigate race between the freezer and request_firmware() Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 46/78] kgdb,debug_core: pass the breakpoint struct instead of address and memory Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 47/78] kgdbts: Fix kernel oops with CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 48/78] kgdbts: (1 of 2) fix single step awareness to work correctly with SMP Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 49/78] kgdbts: (2 " Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 50/78] x86,kgdb: Fix DEBUG_RODATA limitation using text_poke() Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 51/78] CIFS: Fix VFS lock usage for oplocked files Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 52/78] USB: ohci-at91: fix vbus_pin_active_low handling Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 53/78] ARM: at91/USB host: specify and handle properly vbus_pin_active_low Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 54/78] mmc: sdio: Use empty system suspend/resume callbacks at the bus level Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 55/78] mmc: sdhci-dove: Fix compile error by including module.h Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 56/78] mmc: atmel-mci: correct data timeout computation Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 57/78] tcm_fc: Add abort flag for gracefully handling exchange timeout Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 58/78] tcm_fc: Do not free tpg structure during wq allocation failure Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 59/78] sysctl: fix write access to dmesg_restrict/kptr_restrict Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 60/78] regmap: prevent division by zero in rbtree_show Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 61/78] modpost: Fix modpost license checking of vmlinux.o Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 62/78] mfd: Fix section mismatch warning for da9052-spi Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 63/78] android, lowmemorykiller: remove task handoff notifier Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 64/78] TOMOYO: Fix mount flags checking order Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 65/78] iwlegacy: do not nulify il->vif on reset Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 66/78] Revert "x86/ioapic: Add register level checks to detect bogus io-apic entries" Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 67/78] acer-wmi: No wifi rfkill on Sony machines Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 68/78] Fix length of buffer copied in __nfs4_get_acl_uncached Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 69/78] sched/x86: Fix overflow in cyc2ns_offset Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 70/78] mfd: Clear twl6030 IRQ status register only once Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 71/78] USB: Add Motorola Rokr E6 Id to the USBNet driver "zaurus" Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 72/78] ioat: fix size of completion for Xen Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 73/78] [media] uvcvideo: Fix race-related crash in uvc_video_clock_update() Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 74/78] ASoC: ak4642: fixup: mute needs +1 step Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 75/78] ASoC: tegra: fix i2s compilation when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 76/78] media: dvb_frontend: regression fix: userspace ABI broken for xine Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 77/78] media: dvb-core: fix DVBFE_ALGO_HW retune bug Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:11 ` [ 78/78] cred: copy_process() should clear child->replacement_session_keyring Greg KH 2012-04-11 23:59 ` [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review Sergio Correia 2012-04-11 23:59 ` [ath9k-devel] " Sergio Correia 2012-04-11 23:59 ` Sergio Correia 2012-04-11 23:59 ` Sergio Correia 2012-04-12 0:29 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 0:29 ` [ath9k-devel] " Greg KH 2012-04-12 0:29 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 0:57 ` Sergio Correia 2012-04-12 0:57 ` [ath9k-devel] " Sergio Correia 2012-04-12 0:57 ` Sergio Correia 2012-04-12 1:03 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 1:03 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 1:13 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 1:13 ` [ath9k-devel] " Greg KH 2012-04-12 1:13 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 13:32 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 13:32 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 14:46 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 14:46 ` [ath9k-devel] " Greg KH 2012-04-12 14:46 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 16:49 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 16:49 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 17:24 ` Adrian Chadd 2012-04-12 17:24 ` [ath9k-devel] " Adrian Chadd 2012-04-12 17:24 ` Adrian Chadd 2012-04-12 18:43 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 18:43 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 18:56 ` Jonathan Nieder 2012-04-12 18:56 ` [ath9k-devel] " Jonathan Nieder 2012-04-12 21:34 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 21:34 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 21:43 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-12 21:43 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-12 20:07 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 20:07 ` [ath9k-devel] " Greg KH 2012-04-12 20:07 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 20:52 ` Sven-Haegar Koch 2012-04-12 20:52 ` [ath9k-devel] " Sven-Haegar Koch 2012-04-13 8:57 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-13 8:57 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-13 10:29 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 10:29 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 13:42 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-13 13:42 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-13 14:01 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-13 14:01 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-13 22:38 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 22:38 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 23:05 ` Jonathan Nieder 2012-04-13 23:05 ` [ath9k-devel] " Jonathan Nieder 2012-04-13 23:18 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 23:18 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 5:44 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 5:44 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 5:44 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 15:43 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 15:43 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 16:02 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 16:02 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 9:10 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 9:10 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 15:52 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 15:52 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 18:08 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 18:08 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 7:41 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 7:41 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 15:29 ` Felipe Contreras [this message] 2012-04-14 15:29 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 15:57 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 15:57 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 19:33 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 19:33 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 19:58 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 19:58 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 17:55 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 17:55 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 19:21 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 19:21 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 21:21 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 21:21 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 22:09 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 22:09 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 22:47 ` Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 22:47 ` [ath9k-devel] " Stefan Richter 2012-04-14 22:56 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 22:56 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 23:06 ` Adrian Chadd 2012-04-14 23:06 ` [ath9k-devel] " Adrian Chadd 2012-04-13 19:08 ` Peter Stuge 2012-04-13 19:08 ` Peter Stuge 2012-04-13 22:53 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 22:53 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 6:01 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-14 6:01 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-16 16:27 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 16:27 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 20:11 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 20:11 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 20:58 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 20:58 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 20:58 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 21:18 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 21:18 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 21:27 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 21:27 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 21:27 ` Greg KH 2012-04-16 21:44 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 21:44 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 22:34 ` Peter Stuge 2012-04-16 22:34 ` Peter Stuge 2012-04-17 5:24 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-17 5:24 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-17 5:24 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-16 21:50 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 21:50 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 21:54 ` Don deJuan 2012-04-16 21:54 ` Don deJuan 2012-04-16 22:02 ` Don deJuan 2012-04-16 22:02 ` Don deJuan 2012-04-16 21:39 ` Don deJuan 2012-04-16 21:39 ` Don deJuan 2012-04-12 18:40 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-12 18:40 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-12 18:40 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-12 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 19:05 ` [ath9k-devel] " Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 21:20 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 21:20 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 21:34 ` [ath9k-devel] " Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 21:44 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 21:44 ` [ath9k-devel] " Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 22:02 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-04-12 22:02 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-04-12 22:04 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 22:04 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 22:07 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 22:07 ` [ath9k-devel] " Linus Torvalds 2012-04-12 22:29 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 22:29 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 10:47 ` Ingo Molnar 2012-04-14 10:47 ` [ath9k-devel] " Ingo Molnar 2012-04-14 15:59 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-14 15:59 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-15 6:51 ` Ingo Molnar 2012-04-15 6:51 ` [ath9k-devel] " Ingo Molnar 2012-04-15 17:15 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-15 17:15 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-15 17:29 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-15 17:29 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-15 17:49 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-04-15 17:49 ` [ath9k-devel] " Linus Torvalds 2012-04-15 22:12 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-15 22:12 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 5:32 ` Ingo Molnar 2012-04-16 5:32 ` [ath9k-devel] " Ingo Molnar 2012-04-16 20:25 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 20:25 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-16 21:08 ` Arend van Spriel 2012-04-16 21:08 ` [ath9k-devel] " Arend van Spriel 2012-04-16 5:39 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-16 5:39 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-16 6:38 ` Ingo Molnar 2012-04-16 6:38 ` [ath9k-devel] " Ingo Molnar 2012-04-12 22:12 ` David Miller 2012-04-12 22:12 ` [ath9k-devel] " David Miller 2012-04-12 22:58 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 22:58 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 5:34 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-13 5:34 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-13 10:04 ` Felipe Contreras 2012-04-13 10:04 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felipe Contreras 2012-04-12 21:39 ` Willy Tarreau 2012-04-12 21:39 ` [ath9k-devel] " Willy Tarreau 2012-04-12 22:02 ` Jesper Juhl 2012-04-12 22:02 ` [ath9k-devel] " Jesper Juhl 2012-04-12 19:57 ` Alexander Holler 2012-04-12 19:57 ` [ath9k-devel] " Alexander Holler 2012-04-12 20:06 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 20:06 ` [ath9k-devel] " Greg KH 2012-04-12 20:30 ` Alexander Holler 2012-04-12 20:30 ` [ath9k-devel] " Alexander Holler 2012-04-12 22:31 ` Greg KH 2012-04-12 22:31 ` [ath9k-devel] " Greg KH 2012-04-12 4:16 ` Heinz Diehl 2012-04-12 4:16 ` [ath9k-devel] " Heinz Diehl
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='CAMP44s2Un-M2OCmuRQGpGsHR21gH=S7oJKx4Ci8tvYVCCSitUw@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \ --cc=adrian@freebsd.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \ --cc=ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net \ --cc=c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \ --cc=lists@uece.net \ --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ /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: linkBe 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.