Re: [RFC] make wext wireless bits optional and deprecate them

From: Johannes Berg
Date: Mon May 19 2008 - 11:40:31 EST

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 11:24 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 14:16 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > Instead of testing for wireless/, best thing would probably be to call
> > > SIOCGIWRANGE on the device and if it returns EOPNOTSUP then it's not
> > > wireless. Some drivers may have to load firmware to figure out
> > > supported rates and encryption capabilities, but to be honest, NM does
> > > this to detect wireless devices and I haven't run into any issues in 4
> > > years using it. If there are issues with drivers, then we need to fix
> > > the driver too.
> >
> > I was about to propose calling SIOCGIWNAME since that is what
> > wireless-tools do and that linux/wireless.h indicates.
> Hmm; NAME is pretty useless. That's fine to do, I guess WEXT requires
> that NAME return _something_ at least. NAME should never ever be used
> for anything more, but since wireless-tools appears to do this that's
> fine.

Yes, I realise it is completely useless, but wext seems to require that
it be implemented. RANGE would work as well but typically has much more
complexity in the kernel.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part