Johannes<br>I don&#39;t know who is missing something here, but what I&#39;m saying that (1) is not correct. priv ioctls don&#39;t work with compatibility&nbsp; set on. <br>In any case I&#39;ll check it again to be sure and I will apologize if I&#39;m not correct.
<br>I definitely agree on two other&nbsp; points. <br><br>Thanks<br>Tomas<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 2/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Johannes Berg</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:johannes@sipsolutions.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">johannes@sipsolutions.net</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 16:04 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:<br>&gt; Can you elaborate shortly.&nbsp;&nbsp;I&#39;m not from time 0 on this list.<br><br>Well. cfg80211 will replace the common wext ioctls. All the private wext<br>ioctls will not be handled there.
<br><br>The rationale is that<br> (1) it doesn&#39;t delete priv ioctls, they&#39;ll still work for the migration<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; period<br> (2) you can&#39;t rely on private ioctls having a certain meaning for each<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; driver, ie. other drivers are free the reassign numbers of
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sub-ioctls<br> (3) any behaviour that is generally useful should be standardised.<br><br>johannes<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>