Please note: This project is no longer active. The website is kept online for historic purposes only.
If you´re looking for a Linux driver for your Atheros WLAN device, you should continue here .

Ticket #2294 (new defect)

Opened 13 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

[patch] Allow madwifi drivers release 0.9.4 to compile against kernel release 2.6.29

Reported by: damon.southworth@teradyne.com Assigned to:
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: madwifi: other Version: v0.9.4
Keywords: kernel 2.6.29 Cc:
Patch is attached: 1 Pending: 0

Description

Patch to allow release 0.9.4 of the madwifi drivers to compile against Linux kernel release 2.6.29. The reason for this change is that the priv field has been removed from the net_device structure in release 2.6.29 of the Linux kernel. This patch adds a new compatibility macro to handle this change.

Signed-off-by: Damon Southworth <damon.southworth@teradyne.com>

Attachments

kernel-2.6.29.patch (54.3 kB) - added by damon.southworth@teradyne.com on 05/11/09 17:25:54.
Patch to allow compilation of madwifi driver release 0.9.4 against Linux kernel release 2.6.29

Change History

05/11/09 17:25:54 changed by damon.southworth@teradyne.com

  • attachment kernel-2.6.29.patch added.

Patch to allow compilation of madwifi driver release 0.9.4 against Linux kernel release 2.6.29

05/11/09 17:33:55 changed by mrenzmann

First of all, thanks for the patch. Did you check the compatibility fixes that proski committed in the madwifi-0.9.4 branch? Are any changes from your patch missing there?

06/18/09 15:04:56 changed by damon.southworth@teradyne-ds.com

Slight delay in the reply, the original email address I used isn't working so I didn't notice the post.

TBH I didn't realise that the release 0.9.4 had been branched and was still being patched. I had used the patch from #2220 to compile against 2.6.28 but when I moved to 2.6.29 for some testing and when it wouldn't compile my searches for another patch came up dry so I patched it myself. I posted it here in case anyone else would find it useful.

Looking now at the branch both solutions are similar and use a compatibility macro so the branch is the way to go.

Thanks for the info.