From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] d80211: add support for SIOCSIWNICKN SIOCGIWNICKN Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:49:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20060829114915.GB29669@tuxdriver.com> References: <44F3572E.8020506@linux.intel.com> <1156837757.3788.10.camel@ux156> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mabbas , netdev@vger.kernel.org, jbenc@suse.cz Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:52228 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964955AbWH2LuS (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:50:18 -0400 To: Johannes Berg Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1156837757.3788.10.camel@ux156> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:49:17AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > I intend to kill the nick command with nl80211 since it seems to be > useless. Any objections? I can't defend it myself, but I have heard of people using it. I think some of the distro's init scripts might set it as well? Can anyone defend the practice of setting a nickname for a wireless device? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com