From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org (pentafluge.infradead.org [213.146.154.40]) by ra.tuxdriver.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l0VK82vZ008684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:08:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:07:41 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jiri Benc Subject: Re: [RFC] cfg80211 merge Message-ID: <20070131200741.GA22448@infradead.org> References: <20070131013717.GA28076@tuxdriver.com> <20070131024807.GA7061@jm.kir.nu> <20070131182908.13bfc374@griffin.suse.cz> <20070131183255.GB8776@tuxdriver.com> <20070131202549.5ee47bd4@griffin.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20070131202549.5ee47bd4@griffin.suse.cz> Cc: wireless@lists.tuxdriver.org List-Id: Linux wireless networking development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: wireless-bounces@tuxdriver.com Errors-To: wireless-bounces@tuxdriver.com On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:25:49PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:32:55 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > OK, where were you guys in London? I don't recall any disagreement > > there? > > Hm, I remember we agreed that merging of d80211 and cfg80211/nl80211 > are two separate things. And a discussion about cfg80211/nl80211 not > being quite ready yet (if I remember correctly, Jouni participated in > that discussion). But well, it was just informal and maybe I missed > something else. Yes, cfg80211 should go in first so we can use it to avoid all the boilerplate code in existing and new drivers. Once we have netlink-capable userspace nl80211 can be added ontop of that. This also allows for possibly needed adjustments of the nl interface when writing the tools actually using it. _______________________________________________ wireless mailing list wireless@lists.tuxdriver.org http://lists.tuxdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless