From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3138 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751328AbXLMA7g (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:59:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:27:39 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Johannes Berg , Michael Buesch , Zhu Yi , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: mac80211 ethtool support Message-ID: <20071213002739.GB3139@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20071213_005942_352540_C260AA08) References: <1197361048.3170.381.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <200712111350.25522.mb@bu3sch.de> <1197421988.3170.405.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <200712121148.48716.mb@bu3sch.de> <1197481520.6558.140.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240712121523h59d919f8k42fe54b992618432@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1ba2fa240712121523h59d919f8k42fe54b992618432@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:23:55AM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > On Dec 12, 2007 7:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > NACK. Which virtual interface should get this? wmaster sounds like the > > "obvious" candidate but we want to get rid of it ASAP. And the others > > ones are pretty wrong because you can, technically, have a wiphy without > > any virtual interfaces on it. > > > Just a thought. What if all virtual interfaces will quasi implements > it. It doesn't matter if all the interfaces answers the same. Since > these are get only operations the mutual exclusion shouldn't be so > hard. All interfaces will support equally the handlers. But I'm not > sure about other ethool handlers. > If wmaster goes will be all virtual interfaces equal citizens ? Has anyone taken the trouble to analyze the various ethtool operations to see which ones even make sense for wireless devices? That might make a better starting point for discussing how to implement whatever remains. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com