[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink

To: jt@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:10:34 -0400
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxx>, sfeldma@xxxxxxxxx, jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040617190049.GC32216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <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> <20040617115156.14c946b5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040617190049.GC32216@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 11:51:56AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

Remember the API for applications (netlink) doesn't need to be the same as
the driver interface (wireless_ops).  That is the whole point of having
a common core layer.

        Stephen : we have been there since 2001. Check the RtNetlink
patch on my web page, it allows full access to all wireless extensions
through netlink without having to modify a single driver.

Nod...  here's hoping others are checking out out too.

As Stephen points out, though, the driver interface redesign is separate from the use of netlink.


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