Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink

[Jean Tourrilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:34:22PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> Your patch is half the job -- it allows development of a type-specific 
> interface...

        Which is exactly what you want. Good.

> So while this patch may be useful in early development, it does not 
> allow the direct exposure of core wireless code to the type-specific 
> interfaces

        What is the core wireless code ?

> and as such, it can paper over problems that would be 
> immediately obviously if the type-specific interface were the only one 
> to exist.

        Any new code in the kernel is free to use only the new
API. That's a big enoug incentive to migrate drivers over to the new
API.

> >>Also there is a fourth -- WE doesn't work 100% when you have 
> >>a 32-bit userland and a 64-bit kernel.
> >
> >
> >     Since when ? What made you change your mind ?
> >     Please check :
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=107894322418086&w=2
> 
> The general API, yes.  But most driver-private interfaces will fail 
> miserably through 32/64-bit translation.

        That's fixable, and easy to fix, if needed. You have all the
data you need in the kernel.

>       Jeff

        Jean