From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:49547 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767262AbXDTVQd (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:16:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070420.141636.78160146.davem@davemloft.net> To: johannes@sipsolutions.net Cc: shemminger@linux-foundation.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, flamingice@sourmilk.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] wext: allow wext users without rtnl From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1177102423.5902.38.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1177098521.5902.20.camel@johannes.berg> <20070420.133257.32722308.davem@davemloft.net> <1177102423.5902.38.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Johannes Berg Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:53:42 +0200 > Since the discussion came up due to dropping the rtnl from wext I think > that it may be beneficial if we added rtnl locking to cfg80211 now to > simplify migration away from wext which holds rtnl and then revisit the > locking when we can drop wext completely from the mac80211 code. That > would allow us to revisit rtnl locking for wext when we have completely > migrated to cfg80211 and wext is only handled through cfg80211. > > Does that sound like an acceptable way forward? Sure.