netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: generic 802.11 stack

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: generic 802.11 stack
From: greg chesson <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:51:52 -0700
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vladimir Kondratiev <vkondra@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, acx100-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx, prism54-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx, sam@xxxxxxxxx, vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <414788A4.7070003@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <200408312111.02438.vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4145352F.4040807@xxxxxxxxx> <20040913162153.33ff37ec.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200409140819.25787.vkondra@xxxxxxx> <20040913223500.66c06cde.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040914235512.GJ7839@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <414788A4.7070003@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312


Jeff Garzik wrote:
<snip>


While I don't mind dual-licensing per se, I really dislike the associated _technical_ crap that comes along with it, namely

* cross-OS compatibility wrappers
* attempts to pretend that locking is _remotely_ similar between BSD and Linux net stacks
* use of non-Linux coding styles and memes
* over-engineering and over-abstraction


<snip>

I won't try to argue that these are not valid points -
except for maybe the last one because it is so subjective.
But not in this email.

I do argue that these points are not relevant to the question
of  whether or not a strict stack model of 802.11 management
and encapsulation procedures will suffice for anything more
than the most basic functionality.   That is an interesting question
that deserves an answer.

Personally, I think it will be necessary to have more shared information and procedures between driver and 802.11 stack than is convenient or elegant in a strict stack arrangement.
 But, I've been wrong before.
Perhaps a fresh start with unbiased implementation will do something wonderful. I look forward to seeing how a new implementation deals with the power-save packets in the presence of qos, crypto, and fragmentation - all of which are necessary evils
if you want to pass wifi certification tests.

g


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