[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1211211547.6252.54.camel@johannes.berg>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:39:07 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jean Tourrilhes <jt@....hp.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] make wext wireless bits optional and deprecate them
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 11:24 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 14:16 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > Instead of testing for wireless/, best thing would probably be to call
> > > SIOCGIWRANGE on the device and if it returns EOPNOTSUP then it's not
> > > wireless. Some drivers may have to load firmware to figure out
> > > supported rates and encryption capabilities, but to be honest, NM does
> > > this to detect wireless devices and I haven't run into any issues in 4
> > > years using it. If there are issues with drivers, then we need to fix
> > > the driver too.
> >
> > I was about to propose calling SIOCGIWNAME since that is what
> > wireless-tools do and that linux/wireless.h indicates.
>
> Hmm; NAME is pretty useless. That's fine to do, I guess WEXT requires
> that NAME return _something_ at least. NAME should never ever be used
> for anything more, but since wireless-tools appears to do this that's
> fine.
Yes, I realise it is completely useless, but wext seems to require that
it be implemented. RANGE would work as well but typically has much more
complexity in the kernel.
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists