Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
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.
Jeff
Have you looked at the patch I sent you ? In which way does it
fails to meet your need ?
The three major problems I listed in a previous email are still
present...
Are we talking of the same patch ? I'm talking of this patch :
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=108749580004668&w=2
I reattached the patch below. It's short enough.
Your patch is half the job -- it allows development of a type-specific
interface... but it does nothing to address the problems with the
underlying type-opaque interface.
The creation of the type-specific interface replaces the type-opaque
interface, not layers on top of it.
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, and as such, it can paper over problems that would be
immediately obviously if the type-specific interface were the only one
to exist.
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.
Jeff
|