On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:45:25PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Regardless of our recent discussions, I do want to emphasize that I wish
> to maintain the current WE, and its backwards compatibility, for the
> current 2.6.x stable series at the very least.
>
> So please don't be discouraged from submitting WE patches...
No problem Jeff ;-) Because of my wife, I have learned to
compromise (I just wish she had learned that as well). I already told
you that the actual delivery mechanism to the driver doesn't matter to
me, what matter to me is the vocabulary and gramar of the API. And
also I want to satisfy the need of both driver authors and userspace.
So, we are aiming for the same goal, just having slightly
different methods.
I plan to submit WE-17 to you somewhat soon, because Jouni
needs it, and I've postponed it far too much. There is actually one
change in WE-17 that you should appreciate. WPA and RtNetlink will go
when they are ready, for WPA it depends on Jouni, for RtNetlink on me.
> Jeff
>
>
> P.S. do associated userland wireless-tools patches exist to make use of
> netlink? i.e. how have you been testing it?
Good catch ;-)
There are some advantage to RtNetlink. Unfortunately,
simplicity is not one. Dealing with RtNetlink is a lot of work
compared to ioctl, as you may discover if you migrate your API to it.
I have a pretty simple test app. I'm working on a version of
iwlib that would go through RtNetlink, that would enable the full
Wireless Tools to use RtNetlink. I'll try to release that soon.
Have fun...
Jean
|