From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:60514 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751168AbXFNSYu (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:24:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:23:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Christoph Hellwig cc: Andrew Morton , johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, dcbw@redhat.com, hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211 In-Reply-To: <20070614181307.GA16856@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <1181757483.29767.99.camel@johannes.berg> <20070614170901.GA13384@infradead.org> <20070614103836.23b07a72.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070614181307.GA16856@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased > > if you could prepare a patch... > > Here we go: I don't mind ripping them out, but it makes sense only if people are actually signed up to implementing this on a higher layer. As such, I'd need to get a sign-off from somebody actually involved in wireless mesh stuff etc. Please? I do agree that the private iwpriv interface seems to be totally the wrong thing to do, but I want to see this as a first step towards a better situation, rather than just a "remove code that is ugly" issue! Comments? Linus