On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 23:13 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 01/05/15 23:05, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 23:05 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely
entirely on cfg80211's wext compatibility.
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 09:23 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Yours is the theoretical, hopefully-forward-looking one where we still
expect the driver to actually be modified to take advantage of the new
frameworks (which is independent of wext support towards userspace). In
that scenario, yes, it
On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 23:28 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 10:07 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Marcel Holtmann mar...@holtmann.org
wrote:
why would you revert this? It is obviously the correct change to actually
select CFG80211_WEXT.
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Johannes Berg wrote:
Well, see the big thread over there with the revert that I'm tempted to
not even read ...
I'd actually like to hear from you whether you share Emmanuel's point of
view that my revert of your patch was inappropriate; I was really
surprised that there
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:12 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Johannes Berg wrote:
Well, see the big thread over there with the revert that I'm tempted to
not even read ...
I'd actually like to hear from you whether you share Emmanuel's point of
view that my revert of your
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:14 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 01/03/15 23:28, Paul Bolle wrote:
Side note: am I correct in thinking that there's some successor to
CFG80211_WEXT and that the ipw2200 driver could, at least in theory, be
ported to that successor? (ipw2200 hardware appears to
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely
entirely on cfg80211's wext compatibility.
So far the theory - in practice nobody cared enough to
On 01/05/15 23:05, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches,
until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely
entirely on cfg80211's wext compatibility.
So far the theory -
On 01/05/15 18:38, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:14 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 01/03/15 23:28, Paul Bolle wrote:
Side note: am I correct in thinking that there's some successor to
CFG80211_WEXT and that the ipw2200 driver could, at least in theory, be
ported to that
On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 18:38 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
ipw2200 is a WEXT driver using some wext functionality (and struct
wiphy) provided by cfg80211 hence it needs CFG80211_WEXT. I guess that
is what makes it confusing.
It doesn't help that I hardly know anything about mac80211,
On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 10:07 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Marcel Holtmann mar...@holtmann.org wrote:
why would you revert this? It is obviously the correct change to actually
select CFG80211_WEXT.
I don't know about obvious, but yeah, I think the select
This reverts commit 60220f41775e634258efd1b54c6fa81ce706.
The raison d'être of commit 60220f41 (ipw2200: select
CFG80211_WEXT) was reverted in commit 2d36e008739e (Revert cfg80211:
make WEXT compatibility unselectable). So revert this commit too.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle
13 matches
Mail list logo
