On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 12:36 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote: > > I'm guessing that you guys considered and rejected the idea of pushing > these out to a separate, vendor specific genl family instead?
We do actually use that internally (though mostly for cases where we don't have a cfg80211 connection like manufacturing support), but vendor commands are there and people do like to use them :-) The idea with formalizing this is that they actually get more visibility, and I hope that this will lead to more forming of real nl80211 API too. johannes
