On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 22:28 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 07:08 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > > I really, really don't know why ieee80211 uses <hidden>, but it's a pain > > in the ass and should NOT be done for d80211. I don't know if we can > > ever remove it from ieee80211 though for backwards compat reasons. > > Ugh. /me makes a note for the cfg80211/we compat layer. This is a > mess :(
Well, there's no way a userspace program could depend on all hidden SSID APs having the <hidden> tag, since if you stick in another, non-ieee80211-stack card it won't be like that. So I don't think we should care about <hidden> in d80211, but I don't think we can remove it from ieee80211 either. The only case where we'll care about it is if we move to common scan-result processing code, and there we may have to put a compat flag in that the driver can set or something. But we should definitely _not_ use <hidden> in d80211 or cfg80211, because any program depending on <hidden> just won't work with anything other than an ipw card. Dan - 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
