On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 09:17 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > I was initially very negative towards the WPA API (WPA + > extended scan), because it's so complex. I went back and forth with > Jouni trying to simplify it, but we did not manage to gain much. I > trust that Jouni did the best he could, that's just the nature of the > beast.
:) > I was thinking of the WE -> nl80211 compatibility. It's pretty > trivial to do as far as WE is concerned, you just need to hack > get_handler() to return the nl80211 handler. Or, if you don't like a > single handler, you could have one wrapper per ioctl, which is even > easier. Currently, I don't rely on that at all, nl80211 relies on the driver/stack assigning ieee80211_ptr in the netdevice field and uses that as a cookie. IOW, get_handler() gets to die. My current plan for compatibility was to make all drivers cfg80211-away by making them register themselves with cfg80211 with a callback struct with entries for each thing they need to handle, and then introduce a translation layer that translates incoming WE requests into the appropriate callbacks just like nl80211 translates the incoming genetlink messages. > Do you have a recent version of your code so that I can see > how it can hook on your side ? I think we could put the generic > mechanism in place early so that people can add specifics as they need > them. The latest patches were posted to netdev quite a while ago, I haven't done anything with them recently. One thing I'd like to do is rename the include from net/nl80211.h to net/cfg80211.h so that it's more obvious that it isn't purely netlink (include/nl80211.h is the userspace netlink interface so that stays). johannes - 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
