On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:44:53PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:56:19 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > The above represents my thinking on the issue. Ultimately the WiPHY > > (aka radio) device should be thought of as a new class of driver, > > distinct from a netdev. If we have to reroute some infrastructure > > (i.e. qdisc) to make that practical, we should do so. > > I definitely agree. But it means that possibly large changes will be > needed in the networking core. Do you think it will be acceptable for > non-802.11 developers?
It depends, of course, on the patches. If the end goal is sound (as I believe it is) and the changes are responsible, I don't see why we couldn't make such changes. I can't help but believe that part of the problem with wireless so far is based on the feeling that we need to tip-toe around and try to morph ourselves to fit existing infrastructure. If we need new infrastructure, I think we should build it. Does that mean we should rip-out existing architecture and break things just because we don't like them? No. I only mean to say that wireless should be a 1st class citizen, and that the kernel should accomodate it properly. 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
