On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 10:08 +0800, Zhu Yi wrote: > OK. This is the key of the discussion.
I agree. > Do we take wpa_supplicant the > only implementation of userspace MLME or even decision making (ie. DLS > config) daemon? I think it's a combination of these facts. I don't think DLS decision making can properly live in wpa_supplicant, it'll need to be integrated into various multimedia frameworks for example. What Michael is basically proposing from what I can tell is that all these frameworks rely on wpa_supplicant's socket-based configuration to tell wpa_supplicant about it. > If so, we don't need the API. Otherwise we'd better have > the API in the kernel because we cannot expect both userspace MLME > implentation A and B support the same API (via IPC) for configuration. Exactly. On the one hand I guess you could argue that if the MLME implementation would be in the kernel there'd only be one as well, but on the other hand I'd rather be able to have various different MLMEs. Maybe the xsupplicant project is interested in doing some of this as well, or maybe some of the various wireless testing tools would like to be an MLME too under some circumstances... johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
