[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink

To: sfeldma@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:49:26 -0400
Cc: Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx, jt@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1087412780.3351.34.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0103AF626C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40CF263E.70009@xxxxxxx> <1087377197.25912.54.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D08769.3070106@xxxxxxx> <1087412780.3351.34.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040510
I apologize for not responding earlier...

ethtool is the wrong direction for a few reasons,
* I really should have done ethtool via netlink
* We want to move away from pretending that 802.3 == 802.11, and using ethtool only serves to reinforce an association we don't want to make. "everything is ethernet" isn't really true :)

About overall API design...

When designing interfaces that the low-level drivers must implement, keep two things in mind:

* locking, security checks, and ioctl marshalling/thunking should be done in common kernel code, not each hardware driver. * given that, each wireless hook (callback) should be purpose-specific -- which means each callback's arguments and return value vary, depending on the callback's purpose. iw_handler must be killed, because that forces more code than necessary to be in each low-level driver.

The example to look at here is struct ethtool_ops, and net/core/ethtool.c.

Low-level drivers should be implementing small, fine-grained hooks NOT raw ioctl handlers. In addition to fostering smaller hardware drivers, this insulates the driver interface from ABI changes to a certain degree.


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