[ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k?

[ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k?

[Ben Greear]

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.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

[ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k?

[Jouni Malinen]

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

[ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k?

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:27:01AM -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.

As much as I love the funcitonality it complicates the driver,
and I would welcome the rm -rf of it given that experimenters
can simply use older kernels now with the virtual wiphy.
Jouni, thoughts?

  Luis