On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:52 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > I'm not sure I'm following. I was under the impression that the > conclusion of yesterdays discussion was that its probably not > worth using rtnetlink for wireless so it will continue to use > generic netlink exclusively, but even if that is wrong, nothing > would prevent adding a "rtnetlink family" for wireless as well.
Oh, ok. Yeah nothing stops us from doing that, of course. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
