Simon Barber wrote:
I disagree that the master device is a hack - I also disagree that we
should use 802.11 format frames anywhere but internally inside the
802.11 stack. The 802.11 specification does not use 802.11 format frames
to communicate with the upper layers - it uses almost exactly the s
Jiri Benc wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:10:50 -0800, Simon Barber wrote:
I disagree that the master device is a hack
It's a clever hack but still a hack. The Linux network interfaces
wasn't designed for the sort of things we do with master interface.
Actually, the networking core doesn't suppo
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 11:05 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> I wasn't in times when there was no cfg80211. But now... yes, you're
> right. The sysfs ieee80211 class exports just some interesting
> informations (we already agreed that add_interface and remove_interface
> would go away). Feel free to move
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 10:43 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> In particular:
> - The operations that make sense for user to perform on wiphy/master
> interface are different than the ones on virtual interfaces. It isn't
> this way now.
Which particular operations do you have in mind? Granted, you won
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:16:18 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > During the "tx handlers" phase that "copy of skb->cb" is extended quite a
> > lot with other information determined in the tx handlers. The result is a
> > structure that doesn't fit into cb anymore. This is a reason for not using
> > cb
> I would go further - and perhaps move some of the meta-data that is in
> the skb->cb into a d80211 specific hardware header. This would allow
> sniffers to directly attach to the master device and both send and
> receive frames complete with the meta data. It would also reduce the
> amount of cb
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:10:50 -0800, Simon Barber wrote:
> I disagree that the master device is a hack
It's a clever hack but still a hack. The Linux network interfaces
wasn't designed for the sort of things we do with master interface.
Actually, the networking core doesn't support the concept of "
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 01:11 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> I wouldn't say "useless". It's actually a hack (and you yourself described
> in (7) why it is currently necessary). We'll need to live with it or
> cripple the stack to support only very basic features or rewrite the Linux
> networking core. Ch
f Garzik; John W. Linville; Simon Barber; Michael Buesch;
Ivo van Doorn; Michael Wu; Jouni Malinen; Daniel Drake; Hong Liu; Luis
R. Rodriguez; James Ketrenos; David Kimdon; Udayan Singh
Subject: Re: wireless notes / pre d80211 merge
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 1. ma
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 1. master netdev
>
> Currently, we have the 'master' netdev wmasterN which is created as
> native 802.11 device but is essentially useless. It is exported to
> userspace but only supports wireless extensions and, depending on what
> the dr
0. Introduction
Hi,
As promised on IRC, here are some thoughts on what d80211 is currently
doing and what should in my opinion be changed.
I'm writing this now mostly because I think that we have userspace
visible issues to sort out *before* we can land in -mm or even mainline
with d80211.
Thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
