From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather thand80211-specificqdisc Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:39:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20061103193906.GB3286@tuxdriver.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Berg , Stephen Hemminger , Christoph Hellwig , James Ketrenos , Jeff Garzik , Patrick McHardy , David Kimdon , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:45329 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753501AbWKCToD (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:44:03 -0500 To: Simon Barber Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:29:33AM -0800, Simon Barber wrote: > I should elaborate - if 802.11 is made into a real protocol - then raw > packet capture works correctly on the master device. (raw sockets opened > on the device see all frames before they are passed to the protocol). > This is the right way to go. There is some merit to this idea. Then we could attach IBSS, WDS, STA, or AP sub-interfaces (with or without ethernet encapsulation) in a manner similar to how VLAN sub-interfaces are attached to ethernet devices today. Of course, I seem to remember ranting against that model a few months ago. I'll just wave my hands and call it pragmatism... :-) John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com