Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:34:22PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Your patch is half the job -- it allows development of a type-specific
interface...
Which is exactly what you want. Good.
The patch doesn't kill the type-opaque interface, so only 50% of what I
want.
So while this patch may be useful in early development, it does not
allow the direct exposure of core wireless code to the type-specific
interfaces
What is the core wireless code ?
At the moment, "the stuff that calls the driver-local iw_handlers", but
hopefully more generic wireless core soon with the merge of HostAP.
and as such, it can paper over problems that would be
immediately obviously if the type-specific interface were the only one
to exist.
Any new code in the kernel is free to use only the new
API. That's a big enoug incentive to migrate drivers over to the new
API.
With the type-opaque interface gone (key design goal), drivers not using
the new API will not function...
Also there is a fourth -- WE doesn't work 100% when you have
a 32-bit userland and a 64-bit kernel.
Since when ? What made you change your mind ?
Please check :
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=107894322418086&w=2
The general API, yes. But most driver-private interfaces will fail
miserably through 32/64-bit translation.
That's fixable, and easy to fix, if needed. You have all the
data you need in the kernel.
Not really -- it's the same problem as SIOCDEVPRIVATE. Driver-private
interfaces by definition change for each driver. Translation of the
same ioctl differs on a per-driver basis. Consider what happens when
passing pointers from userland, for example...
It was for this reason that we created the MII ioctls, which were
previously SIOCDEVPRIVATE.
Jeff
|