Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thu Jun 14 2007 - 13:39:46 EST
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:09:01 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Independent of any nl80211 status the private libertas ioctls have to
> go. Not only don't we want private ioctls for mesh networking but rather
> have it as driver-independent interface, but the actual libertas interface
> is the worst possible choice. It uses the absolutely broken iwpriv interface
> instead of plain ioctls, and has a cmpletely confusing forest of sub ioctls.
> I strongly recommend ripping out all the ioctls for 2.6.22 and waiting for
> a proper interface to appear.
If we're going to change the interface in the future (and it sounds like
we should) then yes, we should strenuously avoid releasing the current interface
> The olpc people can patch the ioctls back
> in for their use, but we should not put in interface like this into the
> upstream kernel. All NIC vendors get pushed back badly when they try
> to put in less crappy ioctls, there is no reason to make a exception for
> libtertas just because it's used by a project that some of the involved
> maintainers like a lot.
I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased
if you could prepare a patch...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/