On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Johannes Berg wrote: > >On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 18:20 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > > > > > >>Sure, it is way more better. But again, it's the question of > >>compatibility. I think that at least for some time the new netlink API > >>and WE should coexist. After some time, WE support can be removed. > > > > > >Wouldn't it make more sense to put compatibility one layer up by > >introducing a new helper command 'iwconfig' that has the same user-level > >syntax but calls the netlink api instead? > > > I agree with Jiri's base assertion -- we shouldn't completely obliterate > the userland API immediately, since Linux's holy grail is not breaking > userland. > > They may mean carrying some compat code in the kernel for a while, or > some other solution... The compat code could simply call netlink > internally, for example.
Isn't this how "traditional" netdev configuration ioctl's (think ifconfig) are handled already? I would think we would do the same thing for the wireless ioctl's. John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
