From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from dhost002-40.dex002.intermedia.net ([64.78.21.127]:54325 "EHLO dhost002-40.dex002.intermedia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030346AbXC2QKX (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:10:23 -0400 From: "Jouni Malinen" Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:44:31 -0700 To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless , Jouni Malinen Subject: Re: WPA/RSN information in cfg80211? Message-ID: <20070329154431.GA3906@devicescape.com> References: <1175034846.5151.20.camel@johannes.berg> <20070328190017.GI6036@devicescape.com> <1175166739.8807.46.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1175166739.8807.46.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:12:19PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 12:00 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > As long as the information is available for the driver at the time of > > association request, it does not really matter how that information got > > there.. > > I'd have thought you would rather see the IE included to be able to > experiment with new things easier ;) Looks like there is some misunderstanding here.. What I meant with "the information" was both the IE and the individual parameters. I do indeed want to get both of these available to the drivers. > I really can't decide which way to use. Piecing together the IE in the > kernel and then just passing it doesn't seem like much overhead, but > doing it in userspace gives us more freedom for experiments... I believe both should be provided from user space and kernel has option of using either one depending on needs. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA