In other words, if we really have had the code to handle both interfaces
in the kernel, I vote for just reverting the patch that "fixed" it to just
one.
But I suspect that's not what you're really saying. I think you're saying
is that we've had two different interfaces for _different_ chips, and that
some user-space tools have supported both. And since clearly the distros
haven't updated to those tools yet (or this wouldn't be an issue), we
still want to avoid a flag-day, and wait until they have done so.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
- Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]