netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] acx100 inclusion in mainline; generic 802.11 stack

To: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC] acx100 inclusion in mainline; generic 802.11 stack
From: Vladimir Kondratiev <vkondra@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:37:54 +0300
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, Denis Vlasenko <vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jean Tourrilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jouni Malinen <jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx>, acx100-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, prism54-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4137839B.4000303@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <200408312111.02438.vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200409022324.43117.vkondra@xxxxxxx> <4137839B.4000303@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.7
Is anyone working on this stack? I asked Dave, he is hot working on it.
Or is this code dead?

On Thursday 02 September 2004 23:33, Jeff Garzik wrote:
JG> Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
JG> > Jeff,
JG> >
JG> > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 21:21, Jeff Garzik wrote:
JG> > JG> Denis Vlasenko wrote:
JG> > JG> > I think 'senior' network guys are in position to decide upon
 which JG> > JG> > of currently available 802.11 stacks we should continue to
 work. JG> > JG> > (Atheros has one, said to be derived from BSD, is there
 any others?) JG> > JG>
JG> > JG>
JG> > JG> Already have.  Start with the code in wireless-2.6 -- HostAP -- and
 use JG> > JG> DaveM's 802.11 stack template as a model for actually
 integrating 802.11 JG> > JG> very tightly with the rest of the net stack.
JG> > JG>
JG> > JG>
JG> > 
 http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/jgarzik/patchkits/2.6/davem-p8
 JG> > 0211.tar.bz2
JG> >
JG> > Is this stack the main one that is going to be used? I.e. if I am
 working on JG> > driver for next generation .11 card - should I try to use
 it, request/submitt JG> > missing features etc.? Or should I use wireless
 extensions?
JG>
JG> DaveM's code is a template for how a wireless stack would look when
JG> properly and fully integrated into the net core.
JG>
JG> Although JeanT and I disagree about this, I am less interested in
JG> backwards compatibility than I am about making wireless a "first class
JG> citizen" in the kernel.  As I have proven with kcompat
JG> (http://sf.net/projects/gkernel/) you can be backwards compatible while
JG> still evolving the current kernel driver API to meet current design
 needs. JG>
JG>     Jeff
JG>
JG>
JG>
JG>

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