From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than d80211-specific qdisc Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:18:15 +0000 Message-ID: <20061102141815.GA1795@infradead.org> References: <20061026050416.GB14199@havoc.gtf.org> <20061101112805.246e1b3b@griffin.suse.cz> <20061101142022.GC21668@tuxdriver.com> <4548E7F7.7030100@linux.intel.com> <20061102121657.GA13468@infradead.org> <20061102150550.5c30f704@midnight> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Ketrenos , "John W. Linville" , Simon Barber , Jeff Garzik , Patrick McHardy , David Kimdon , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:2984 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750705AbWKBOTC (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:19:02 -0500 To: Jiri Benc Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061102150550.5c30f704@midnight> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:05:50PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:16:57 +0000 > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > The most important merge requirement is to not break userspace. That means > > proper support of WE (hopefully via cfg80211), and a single ethX network > > device. > > Sounds reasonable. Though: > - I don't think ethX is the appropriate name. It's not an ethernet > device and many wireless drivers currently use wlanX name. I think > the current wlanX name is a better choice here. This is not about the name that makes sense. I think using ethX names for wireless devices is utterly stupid, but it's what all current upstream drivers do, and at least for WE compat we'll have to stick to it. > - Single device is not as easy as it sounds. It would require rather > invasive changes in the networking core or ugly hacks in d80211. I'm > afraid this is something not achievable in a near future with current > number of people working on d80211. But in general, it's doable and > desirable, yes. Again, I'm not sure it's even desirable in the end. We do however need a mode in which you can configure a single ethX device with WE and it'll just work. It's entirely reasonable to only support a subset of the functionality that way (no 802.11n, no AP mode, etc)