Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
Let me answer to the set of questions raised:
- dual licensing: I am not ready to answer for legal. I will discuss with
proper people and answer.
end the end it is your choice.
- code style: regardless of answer on question above, I intend to do Linux
work and will not care about compatibility macros. I really dislike such
macros, they do make code hard to understand.
This is true - and it's not just compatibility macro's that force
the reader to find and read the macro before understanding the code.
But there is a fine line between macro's that are accepted as standard
practice in a kernel, e.g. LIST_INSERT_HEAD, and the same kind
of thing that is used in a driver for compatibility across different
versions of the Linux kernel or, dog save us, some other unix-like OS.
- information sharing (driver-stack): good question indeed. I am currently
evaluating it. This far, I think I will supply some standard link layer
information per packet. Like rate, RSSI etc. For Tx, it will include also
crypto key for hardware assisted encryption, type of protection (RTS/CTS
etc.) I believe it should be sufficient. To prove it, I am going to write
some dummy .11 driver that will be capable to simulate any Rx, with user
interface for feeding packets. I will use this driver to debug stack.
2 cents of advice: the rx path is the easier side.
the more complex and fun stuff happens on the tx side.
It is complex issue to support all combination of job separation between host
and NIC, I will choose some model like "NIC do almost nothing" and will
develop around it.
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 06:17, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
LR> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:05:45PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
LR> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:02:11PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
LR> > > I proposed dual licensing not to specifically allow clear
compatibility LR> > > among linux and the BSDs on the 802.11 work, but to
allow BSDers to do LR> > > whatever they want with what we come up with --
help with code sharing. LR> >
LR> > Overall, He Who Writes The Code Gets To Choose.
LR> > My own personal opinion is that the BSD license goes against the stated
LR> > spirit of Linux -- contribute back. But that's just me.
LR> Agreed -- but in this case I feel we're the bigger crowd so I wanted to
LR> address to the *author* that I feel we should be considerate to the BSD