linux-kernel - Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46718D81.9080402@garzik.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:48:33 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	johannes@...solutions.net, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	dcbw@...hat.com, hs4233@...l.mn-solutions.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased
>>> if you could prepare a patch...
>> Here we go:
> 
> I don't mind ripping them out, but it makes sense only if people are 
> actually signed up to implementing this on a higher layer. As such, I'd 
> need to get a sign-off from somebody actually involved in wireless mesh 
> stuff etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, linux-wireless, but AFAIK there has never been 
a single post or line of code written for a generic wireless _mesh_ 
interface.

My general sentiment is -- remove the pointless and iw-duplicated 
ioctls, but leave the mesh ones that won't see generic counterparts for 
years.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/