From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753498AbYLBU5V (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:57:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751567AbYLBU5L (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:57:11 -0500 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.31]:16833 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751121AbYLBU5J (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:57:09 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=SntQq/cxGEnKBe1Ue4BVclv45czyeN3YFOV0G0f9aLq9l5Gv0pGApz3CwITVaLYPxT CXqUg/4LwN5Upp/3/7Yg9JlbC1ItyZhvX4Mri5jMvPmxxGDlz6k3QrjleJQk2qzNChzD hEr2stZxUKBmcwqPXhbInAr0RDMbAUwPDFc6U= Message-ID: <43e72e890812021257p761ab16dqa2058c711349a462@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:57:07 -0800 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 0/3] ath9k: several fixes ported to 2.6.27 Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1228251082-11677-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1228251082-11677-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > This fixes a few issues seen on MacBook Pros: > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11811 > > I've ported them to 2.6.27 to help with them being applied sooner. > I've tried to keep them as small as possible. I don't have the > ports for 2.6.28 though I think John will be sending them soon > through his pending-fixes branch. > > These are already applied on wireless-testing. Oh sorry, I noticed patch 2 and 3 didn't go with the subject to indicate their order. The order they should be applied in is: 0001-ath9k-Fix-SW-IOMMU-bounce-buffer-starvation.patch 0002-ath9k-correct-expected-max-RX-buffer-size.patch 0003-ath9k-Handle-ENOMEM-on-RX-gracefully.patch You can also find these here: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mcgrof/patches/ath9k/2008-11-22/27-IOMMU-01/ Luis