| To: | jt@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink |
| From: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:02:49 -0400 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxx>, sfeldma@xxxxxxxxx, jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040617185815.GB32216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <40CF263E.70009@xxxxxxx> <1087377197.25912.54.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D08769.3070106@xxxxxxx> <20040616204248.GA23617@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D0BD5B.201@xxxxxxxxx> <20040616223316.GA29618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D0D265.3070804@xxxxxxxxx> <20040617174717.GA30460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D1E185.2010201@xxxxxxxxx> <40D1E24C.8090802@xxxxxxxxx> <20040617185815.GB32216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040510 |
Jean Tourrilhes wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:26:20PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:Note that the above is only a first step. Through the standard Linux development process -- evolution -- each hook can be pared down to precisely what each call needs. The above allows for a quick transition of drivers, while keeping them working. The three major problems I listed in a previous email are still present... Also there is a fourth -- WE doesn't work 100% when you have a 32-bit userland and a 64-bit kernel.
Jeff
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink, Jean Tourrilhes |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IPsec and Path MTU, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink, Jean Tourrilhes |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink, Jean Tourrilhes |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |