On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 09:23 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Yours is the theoretical, hopefully-forward-looking one where we still
> expect the driver to actually be modified to take advantage of the new
> frameworks (which is independent of wext support towards userspace). In
> that scenario, yes,
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 23:05 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
> > until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely
> > entirely on cfg80211's wext compatibi
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 23:13 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 01/05/15 23:05, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >> Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
> >> until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers a
Paul Bolle writes:
> This reverts commit 60220f41775e634258efd1b54c6fa81ce706.
>
> The raison d'être of commit 60220f41 ("ipw2200: select
> CFG80211_WEXT") was reverted in commit 2d36e008739e ("Revert "cfg80211:
> make WEXT compatibility unselectable""). So revert this commit too.
>
> Sig
On 01/05/15 23:05, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely
entirely on cfg80211's wext compatibility.
So far the theory -
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
> until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely
> entirely on cfg80211's wext compatibility.
>
> So far the theory - in practice nobody cared enoug
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 18:38 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > ipw2200 is a WEXT driver using some wext functionality (and struct
> > wiphy) provided by cfg80211 hence it needs CFG80211_WEXT. I guess that
> > is what makes it confusing.
>
> It doesn't help that I hardly know anything about mac80211,
On 01/05/15 18:38, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:14 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 01/03/15 23:28, Paul Bolle wrote:
Side note: am I correct in thinking that there's some successor to
CFG80211_WEXT and that the ipw2200 driver could, at least in theory, be
ported to that successo
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:14 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 01/03/15 23:28, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Side note: am I correct in thinking that there's some successor to
> > CFG80211_WEXT and that the ipw2200 driver could, at least in theory, be
> > ported to that successor? (ipw2200 hardware appear
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:12 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > Well, see the big thread over there with the revert that I'm tempted to
> > not even read ...
>
> I'd actually like to hear from you whether you share Emmanuel's point of
> view that my revert
On 01/03/15 23:28, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 10:07 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
why would you revert this? It is obviously the correct change to actually
select CFG80211_WEXT.
I don't know about obvious, but yeah, I thin
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Well, see the big thread over there with the revert that I'm tempted to
> not even read ...
I'd actually like to hear from you whether you share Emmanuel's point of
view that my revert of your patch was inappropriate; I was really
surprised that there
On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 23:28 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 10:07 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Marcel Holtmann
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > why would you revert this? It is obviously the correct change to actually
> > > select CFG80211_WEXT.
> >
>
On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 10:07 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> >
> > why would you revert this? It is obviously the correct change to actually
> > select CFG80211_WEXT.
>
> I don't know about obvious, but yeah, I think the select in this case
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>
> why would you revert this? It is obviously the correct change to actually
> select CFG80211_WEXT.
I don't know about obvious, but yeah, I think the select in this case
is actually the better idea anyway.
We could make the CFG80211_WEXT
Hi Paul,
> This reverts commit 60220f41775e634258efd1b54c6fa81ce706.
>
> The raison d'être of commit 60220f41 ("ipw2200: select
> CFG80211_WEXT") was reverted in commit 2d36e008739e ("Revert "cfg80211:
> make WEXT compatibility unselectable""). So revert this commit too.
>
> Signed-off-b
16 matches
Mail list logo
