On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:02:32 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 14:59 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > > But we will have to convert d80211 to cfg80211 anyway, > > so it will depend on the way rate limiting is implemented in cfg80211 > > in the end. > > I'd think it should be more the other way round with d80211/cfg80211 > doing whatever makes most sense...
Current WE implementation of rate limiting (SIOCSIWRATE) doesn't make much sense with d80211. Hopefully we'll invent a better solution for cfg80211. Then we will probably need to put some constraints on SIOCSIWRATE emulation (like "rate limiting is lost when you are disassociated") - hence the comment. Jiri -- Jiri Benc SUSE Labs - 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
