On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:23:40 -0500 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > Ideally, any new infrastructure could do all the compatibility translation so existing drivers wouldn't see it. -- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger - 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
