netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink
From: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:46:44 -0700
Address: HP Labs, 1U-17, 1501 Page Mill road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
Cc: Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxx>, sfeldma@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx
E-mail: jt@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <40D1F687.6030307@xxxxxxxxx>
Organisation: HP Labs Palo Alto
References: <20040616204248.GA23617@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D0BD5B.201@xxxxxxxxx> <20040616223316.GA29618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D0D265.3070804@xxxxxxxxx> <20040617174717.GA30460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D1E185.2010201@xxxxxxxxx> <20040617185605.GA32216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D1EC54.8000904@xxxxxxxxx> <20040617193154.GE32216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D1F687.6030307@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: jt@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:52:39PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> I'm _not_ blaming you for anything.  You have certainly contributed a 
> lot.  I've enjoyed working with you in the past, today, and hopefully 
> into the future as well.  I _am_ listening.  But I think we have a 
> fundamental disagreement:
> 
> I feel strongly (as you see :)) that the type-opaque interface has got 
> to go, and that means breaking backwards compatibility in the driver API.

        Jeff, the main disagreement is not about type-opaque versus
strongly-typed interfaces. I gave you a patch to do that, and I told
you you were free to do it the way you want, I would not get in the
way.
        The main disagreement is about backward compatibility. I've
been fighting for 8 years to maintain backward compatibility. I
believe in it, and I not accept gutting it for no good reasons.

>       Jeff

        Jean

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>