Ok, so in my zeal to get the kernel orinoco drivers to _not_ _suck_,
what branch is the most up-to-date? Have you been commiting the stuff
here that you say is "committed to CVS" to _both_ HEAD and for_linus?
The things I care about (to bring orinoco drivers up to par with others
like prism54 & aironet):
1) Scanning support
2) monitor mode
3) the better firmware handling
Dan
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 13:13 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:55:12PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I will leave that do David/jgarzik since I didn't actually write any of
> > this code, I just broke the megadiff down.
>
> What's happened is that the old explicit schedule_timeout() constructs
> were replaced in CVS with msleep() (ssleep() didn't exist at the
> time). In the meantime, at least some of them were replaced with
> ssleep() in mainline.
>
> I'm about to commit a patch to CVS replacing the msleep()s with
> ssleep()s. In the for_linus branch, at least, HEAD will take longer
> because we'll need to come up with something to maintain compatibility
> with pre-ssleep() kernels.
>
> > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 20:42 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:35:36PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > New description:
> > > >
> > > > o Use msleep() instead of hardcoded schedule_timeout()s
> > > > o Normalize sleep calls to use msleep() everywhere
> > >
> > > care to explain what's the point of the latter?
>
|