From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jouni Malinen Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:42:10 +0200 Subject: [ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k? In-Reply-To: <4D387E75.8000006@candelatech.com> References: <4D387E75.8000006@candelatech.com> Message-ID: <1295548930.3177.62.camel@jm-desktop> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 10:27 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > Seems I saw a note a long time ago about virtual wiphy being > removed sometime soon. Should we go ahead and remove it? > > It doesn't seem useful to me (virtual interfaces appear to > work much better), and it would likely simplify the code > a bit to have it gone. I think some people were using virtual wiphy to work around some issues with vifs, but that is not really useful from the view point of fixing any issues with vifs that may remain.. As far as the support for multiple channel operations is concerned, that will hopefully be added to vifs at some point and the experimental code I added for virtual wiphys is really very much in the experimental side. Even though I have been somewhat against removing this before vifs get multi-channel support, I think I would be fine with getting rid of the current virtual wiphy implementation now with the justification being that it will help addressing other fixes and improvements. - Jouni