Re: [PATCH] wireless: fix regression caused by regulatory configoption

[John W. Linville]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:30:24AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> From 9095a0f6005a8f50c79e51f4aaceda95e361a891 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:25:30 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] wireless: fix regression caused by regulatory config option
> 
> The default for the regulatory compatibility option is wrong;
> if you picked the default you ended up with a non-functional wifi
> system (at least I did on Fedora 9 with iwl4965).
> I don't think even the October 2008 releases of the various distros
> has the new userland so clearly the default is wrong, and also
> we can't just go about deleting this in 2.6.29...
> 
> Change the default to "y" and also adjust the config text a little to
> reflect this.

Is it common practice to have compatibility options default to
"y"?  I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just wondering if it has been
traditionally?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Linux should be at the core
linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx			of your literate lifestyle.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/