From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:41907 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933416AbXBET2T (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:28:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] cfg80211 and nl80211 From: Johannes Berg To: Michael Wu Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <200702051423.13998.flamingice@sourmilk.net> References: <20070131013717.GA28076@tuxdriver.com> <200702051314.21627.flamingice@sourmilk.net> <1170699268.3572.39.camel@johannes.berg> <200702051423.13998.flamingice@sourmilk.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-mvph/lAinhjHI54NbQvg" Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:24:45 +0100 Message-Id: <1170703485.3572.43.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-mvph/lAinhjHI54NbQvg Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 14:23 -0500, Michael Wu wrote: > Anyway, netlink does not seem appropriate for=20 > sending or receiving frames. Care to explain why you think so? johannes --=-mvph/lAinhjHI54NbQvg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBFx4R9/ETPhpq3jKURAjl2AJwKElIMVtl/33ZJk4zcM/+US4Qn9ACgtgwJ y8r5B2/mougrXFFCbfC8lzg= =U9vR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-mvph/lAinhjHI54NbQvg--