On 11/2/06, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please have Ethernet (and wireless) devices show up as eth%d. For the
master device, choose something else (mac%d ?).
If ultimately we're going to make wireless devices, as John puts it,
"1st class citizens" by making 802.11 a full proto
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:27:59 -0800
"Simon Barber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps the solution is to allow the prefix to be a kernel configuration
> item?
>
> Simon
All modern distro's support device naming stuff through hotplug.
Don't put effort into keeping the kernel defaults absolute.
Garzik; Patrick McHardy; David Kimdon; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than
d80211-specific qdisc
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:09:24 +0100 (CET), Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> At least the ones used on my machines all do.
> (Debian Sarge, Etch and Unstable)
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 19:38 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:09:24 +0100 (CET), Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> > At least the ones used on my machines all do.
> > (Debian Sarge, Etch and Unstable)
> > The configfiles can be changed without problems to use any device name,
> > but needing
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:09:24 +0100 (CET), Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> At least the ones used on my machines all do.
> (Debian Sarge, Etch and Unstable)
> The configfiles can be changed without problems to use any device name,
> but needing to edit various files just for a kernel update would inhibt m
etdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than
d80211-specific qdisc
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:32:34PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 14:18 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > This is not about the name that makes sense. I
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Jiri Benc wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:18:15 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This is not about the name that makes sense. I think using ethX names
for wireless devices is utterly stupid, but it's what all current upstream
drivers do, and at least for WE compat we'll have to
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:18:15 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This is not about the name that makes sense. I think using ethX names
> for wireless devices is utterly stupid, but it's what all current upstream
> drivers do, and at least for WE compat we'll have to stick to it.
That's not true. Loo
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 14:45 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I never said the name was related to WE - in fact there are tons of out of
> tree drivers with different names. The important bit is that upgrading a
> kernel adn changing the wireless stack must not change the device name.
Ah, but if
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:32:34PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 14:18 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > This is not about the name that makes sense. I think using ethX names
> > for wireless devices is utterly stupid, but it's what all current upstream
> > drivers do, a
Hi Johannes,
> On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 14:18 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> This is not about the name that makes sense. I think using ethX names
>> for wireless devices is utterly stupid, but it's what all current upstream
>> drivers do, and at least for WE compat we'll have to stick to it.
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 14:18 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This is not about the name that makes sense. I think using ethX names
> for wireless devices is utterly stupid, but it's what all current upstream
> drivers do, and at least for WE compat we'll have to stick to it.
No, that's not true
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:05 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> - Single device is not as easy as it sounds. It would require rather
> invasive changes in the networking core or ugly hacks in d80211. I'm
> afraid this is something not achievable in a near future with current
> number of people working
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:05:50PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:16:57 +
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The most important merge requirement is to not break userspace. That means
> > proper support of WE (hopefully via cfg80211), and a single ethX network
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:16:57PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The most important merge requirement is to not break userspace. That means
> proper support of WE (hopefully via cfg80211), and a single ethX network
> device. The second most important is proper smp support, or good code
> qua
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:16:57 +
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The most important merge requirement is to not break userspace. That means
> proper support of WE (hopefully via cfg80211), and a single ethX network
> device.
Sounds reasonable. Though:
- I don't think ethX is the a
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 10:31:19AM -0800, James Ketrenos wrote:
> The only merge requirement should be that merging d80211 doesn't break
> existing in-tree wireless drivers. We have that today -- you can have
> both stacks in the tree and running in parallel. With that, we have the
> ability to m
James Ketrenos wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Ketrenos wrote:
If people have issues with with specific components of d80211 prior to
its merging, stand up and state what they are and how not fixing them
would negatively impact people that aren't using the d80211 subsystem.
Don't take the abov
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> James Ketrenos wrote:
>> If people have issues with with specific components of d80211 prior to
>> its merging, stand up and state what they are and how not fixing them
>> would negatively impact people that aren't using the d80211 subsystem.
>>
>> Don't take the above as me sa
James Ketrenos wrote:
If people have issues with with specific components of d80211 prior to
its merging, stand up and state what they are and how not fixing them
would negatively impact people that aren't using the d80211 subsystem.
Don't take the above as me saying there aren't items that need
John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:28:05AM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:15:23 -0700, Simon Barber wrote:
>>> Re: registering as a real protocol - yes this I have been going on about
>>> for a while. This needs a few changes in how things work:
>>>
>>> 1. Regis
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:28:05AM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:15:23 -0700, Simon Barber wrote:
> > Re: registering as a real protocol - yes this I have been going on about
> > for a while. This needs a few changes in how things work:
> >
> > 1. Register as a real protocol.
>
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:15:23 -0700, Simon Barber wrote:
> Re: registering as a real protocol - yes this I have been going on about
> for a while. This needs a few changes in how things work:
>
> 1. Register as a real protocol.
> 2. Change drivers to use netif_rx to receive frames (will also be mor
0211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than
d80211-specific qdisc
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:37:04PM -0700, Simon Barber wrote:
> Doing this will slow down the qdisc - it does already run an external
> classifier first if you install one. On typical laptops performance is
> not a problem, b
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:37:04PM -0700, Simon Barber wrote:
> Doing this will slow down the qdisc - it does already run an external
> classifier first if you install one. On typical laptops performance is
> not a problem, but one common usage does have problems. The performance
> of a wireless ho
David Kimdon; netdev@vger.kernel.org; John W. Linville; Jiri Benc
Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than
d80211-specific qdisc
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:21:10AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Considering that it is possibly and may be desirable to attach a
> different qdi
same thing.
Simon
-Original Message-
From: Patrick McHardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:50 PM
To: Simon Barber
Cc: David Kimdon; netdev@vger.kernel.org; John W. Linville; Jiri Benc
Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than
d80211-spe
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:21:10AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Considering that it is possibly and may be desirable to attach a
> different qdisc than the built-in multiband qdisc, it might also
> make sense to split the 80211 specific classification in a seperate
> classifier module to allow s
Simon Barber wrote:
> Pfifo_fast does not make sense because the 802.11 qdisc already
> categorizes the frames based on DSCP. The better thing would be to
> extract the pfifo qdisc so that it does not require NET_SCHED, but this
> is more work.
This patch should be enough to use it without NET_SCH
Simon Barber wrote:
> Pfifo_fast does not make sense because the 802.11 qdisc already
> categorizes the frames based on DSCP. The better thing would be to
> extract the pfifo qdisc so that it does not require NET_SCHED, but this
> is more work.
It wouldn't really hurt though since all frames queue
PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Patrick McHardy
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:29 PM
To: David Kimdon
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; John W. Linville; Jiri Benc
Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than
d80211-specific qdisc
David Kimdon wrote:
> wme.c needs a generic fifo qdisc for e
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> David Kimdon wrote:
>
>>wme.c needs a generic fifo qdisc for each hardware queue. Switch
>>wme.c to use the generic fifo qdisc in net/sched/sch_fifo.c. This allows
>>removal of net/d80211/fifo_qdisc.c which isn't particularily tied to
>>IEEE 802.11 in any way.
>>
>>-#de
David Kimdon wrote:
> wme.c needs a generic fifo qdisc for each hardware queue. Switch
> wme.c to use the generic fifo qdisc in net/sched/sch_fifo.c. This allows
> removal of net/d80211/fifo_qdisc.c which isn't particularily tied to
> IEEE 802.11 in any way.
>
> -#define CHILD_QDISC_OPS pfifo_q
33 matches
Mail list logo
