From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Alternate WE-21 support (core API)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:09:23 +0200
Message-ID: <200609062309.24400.mb@bu3sch.de>
References: <20060830005655.GA8405@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <1157032805.16040.21.camel@ux156> <20060906205538.GA29767@tuxdriver.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jouni Malinen <jkmaline@cc.hut.fi>, jt@hpl.hp.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Javier Achirica <achirica@gmail.com>,
	Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>,
	"James P. Ketrenos" <ipw2100-admin@linux.intel.com>,
	Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@intel.com>, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@ruslug.rutgers.edu>,
	Jeroen Vreeken <pe1rxq@amsat.org>,
	Michael Wu <flamingice@sourmilk.net>,
	Denis Vlasenko <vda@ilport.com.ua>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:29846
	"EHLO bu3sch.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751236AbWIFVKU
	(ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:10:20 -0400
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060906205538.GA29767@tuxdriver.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 06 September 2006 22:55, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:00:05PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:51 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't know about the others, but long/short retry limits have users
> > > (e.g., Host AP driver) and these drivers are currently forced to use a
> > > hack to do this without this cleanup. Furthermore, this part does not
> > > add a new ioctl.
> > 
> > It does, however, add new parameters and things that'd need to be
> > translated in the compat layer later. Hence, even there, I'd prefer to
> > add them directly into nl80211. However, the compat code for that
> > shouldn't be that bad, so I can see that as a softer target :) But I
> > don't want to see new ioctls for sure.
> 
> OK, I think we all agree that there are good parts to Jean's WE-21
> patch.  Below I've made an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff
> (or to cut the baby in half)...
> 
> Is this patch acceptable to the group?  Does it make things better?
> Or worse?  Did I leave-out anything that should still go in?  Did I
> take too much?
> 
> Let me know what you think...?

I am OK with this.

-- 
Greetings Michael.