On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:35:09AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Uh, please don't strip me from the CC list :)
>
> > WE-netlink is optional. And WE-ioctl could be made optional
> > (still on the todo list). You can also disable WE-event and WE-iwspy
> > for further footprint reduction.
>
> Th
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:35:09AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> wireless.c and driver WE support in its current form must die.
I doubt you'll have anyone argue this point; not even JT. I doubt he
cares how WE is ultimately implemented, only that things continue
to "just work".
The problems yo
Uh, please don't strip me from the CC list :)
> WE-netlink is optional. And WE-ioctl could be made optional
> (still on the todo list). You can also disable WE-event and WE-iwspy
> for further footprint reduction.
The real question is: Why does removing WE-event reduce footprint? I
guess th
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 02:47 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> And we don't need all this stuff on these devices? OK, nl80211
> can easily be made optional, too.
Not the whole of nl80211, but I guess some parts for event reporting
etc. could be made optional and the functions tiny do-nothing inlines.
On Saturday 02 September 2006 00:10, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 08:55:48PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> > > Note that one thing that worry me with your approach is
> > > footprint. I've used various embedded devices over the years, such as
> > > the Gumstix (4MB Flash
On 06-09-01 20:55 Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > The real
> > > problem with WE is, as I previously said, the ill-defined semantics of
> > > both the user-space API and the in-kernel API.
> >
> > I don't understand why you say it's ill defined, it 100%
> > documented in the iwconfig man page.
>
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 08:55:48PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > Note that one thing that worry me with your approach is
> > footprint. I've used various embedded devices over the years, such as
> > the Gumstix (4MB Flash), and this is why WE was optimised for
> > footprint.
>
> Can you
On Friday 01 September 2006 18:35, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 08:54:00AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:12 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> >
> > > And I strongly disagree with your disagrement ;-)
> >
> > You're of course free to do that :) But le
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 08:54:00AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:12 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
>
> > And I strongly disagree with your disagrement ;-)
>
> You're of course free to do that :) But let me explain.
And my explanation is even more simple : let'
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 19:57 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> It is. Nobody says different. I think with "mainline" Johannes meant
> the wireless-dev tree. Merging nl80211 with softmac would indeed not
> make sense to me, too.
Actually, I do say different. I want softmac to be a consumer of nl80211
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:12 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> And I strongly disagree with your disagrement ;-)
You're of course free to do that :) But let me explain.
> I'm sorry to say it like this, but I hope my work will not be
> impacted by vaporware. How many drivers are currentl
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:12, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 03:32:18PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 17:56 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > > o modulation
> > > o long/short retry
> > > o relative power saving.
> >
> > I
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 03:32:18PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 17:56 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > o modulation
> > o long/short retry
> > o relative power saving.
>
> I strongly disagree to these.
And I strongly disagree wit
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:51 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> I don't know about the others, but long/short retry limits have users
> (e.g., Host AP driver) and these drivers are currently forced to use a
> hack to do this without this cleanup. Furthermore, this part does not
> add a new ioctl.
It do
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 03:32:18PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 17:56 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > o modulation
> > o long/short retry
> > o relative power saving.
> What's the point of adding more ioctls that we'll be implementing th
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 17:56 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> o modulation
> o long/short retry
> o relative power saving.
I strongly disagree to these.
What's the point of adding more ioctls that we'll be implementing them
as wrappers around nl80211? Right
Hi John,
This is version 21 of the Wireless Extensions. Changelog :
o finishes migrating the ESSID API (remove the +1)
o netdev->get_wireless_stats is no more
o modulation
o long/short retry
o relative
17 matches
Mail list logo
