* [ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k?
@ 2011-01-20 18:27 Ben Greear
2011-01-20 18:42 ` Jouni Malinen
2011-01-20 18:49 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2011-01-20 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ath9k-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k?
2011-01-20 18:27 [ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k? Ben Greear
@ 2011-01-20 18:42 ` Jouni Malinen
2011-01-20 18:49 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jouni Malinen @ 2011-01-20 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ath9k-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k?
2011-01-20 18:27 [ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k? Ben Greear
2011-01-20 18:42 ` Jouni Malinen
@ 2011-01-20 18:49 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2011-01-20 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ath9k-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-20 18:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-01-20 18:27 [ath9k-devel] Should we remove all the virtual wiphy code from ath9k? Ben Greear
2011-01-20 18:42 ` Jouni Malinen
2011-01-20 18:49 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.