On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 01:52:21PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > In general, Jouni's points are good, as are Michael's. > > The key question is about the size of the SoftMAC code. If its huge, an > ieee80211 sub-module makes sense. If it's not, then adding the code to > net/ieee80211 makes a lot more sense. > > Certainly some chips will use more ieee80211 code than others. This is > no different than ethernet NICs: some make use of TSO and checksum > offload code included in every kernel, while for other NICs the kernel > TSO/csum code is just dead weight. > > In general, adding directly to net/ieee80211 is preferred, UNLESS there > are overriding reasons not to do so (such as a huge size increase).
I tend to disagree a bit here. If it can be separate without making the API more complicated a separate module is nicer, if the API would get nasty integerating it is better. And nevermind whether it's a separate module or not it should live in net/ieee80211/ ;-) In either case ?I think this decision is better left until the code is in an almost mergeable shape, because then the details will be clear. _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
