|To:||greg chesson <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: generic 802.11 stack|
|From:||Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:19:24 -0400|
|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|
|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> <41479228.8080507@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803|
greg chesson wrote:
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.
That's precisely what I want -- an elegant strict stack arrangement :)Since DaveM's template is _the_ net stack, I'm worried that BSD compatibility will only slow development and encumber innovation. Surely they can watch what we're doing, learn from our mistakes, and do something even better :)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|