Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-20 Thread Harald Welte
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:15:03PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: * Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-01-12 18:24 This is an attempt to rewrite the Wireless Extensions userspace API, using netlink sockets. There should also be a notification API, to inform userspace for changes (config

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-13 Thread Feyd
Michael Buesch wrote: We also have a function to burn (and read) the SPROM though a private handler, atm. I consider this a very device specific task, which does not really need a standard API. Noone will ever reflash the SPROM, if he has no good good good reasons. ;) The idea of an (WE

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-13 Thread Feyd
John W. Linville wrote: What is WCONF_CMD_NICK for? Just for users convenience, like the nick in WE. Is it really useful? No :) Is the point here to support all current WEXT functionality? It probably should be. For compatibility, we will likely need code to translate the WEXT ioctls to

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-13 Thread Johannes Berg
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 10:25 +0100, Feyd wrote: The all doesn't IMHO server the purpose. You will virtualy never want to set something on all devices. You will want to set it on the minimal subset that shares the resource instead, and want (to be able) to know the subset Ack. This needs to be

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-13 Thread Thomas Graf
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-01-12 18:24 This is an attempt to rewrite the Wireless Extensions userspace API, using netlink sockets. There should also be a notification API, to inform userspace for changes (config changes, state changes, etc). It is not implemented, yet. I'll only

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:24:02 +0100 Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an attempt to rewrite the Wireless Extensions userspace API, using netlink sockets. There should also be a notification API, to inform userspace for changes (config changes, state changes, etc). It is not

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-13 Thread Pavel Machek
On Pá 13-01-06 09:55:33, Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:24:02 +0100 4. What about non-ieee80211 devices? With the growth of (mostly proprietary) cell phone carrier wireless, you don't want to shut out that. Don't mix it here. Mobile phones normally talk using AT

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-13 Thread Johannes Berg
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 00:23 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: On Pá 13-01-06 09:55:33, Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:24:02 +0100 4. What about non-ieee80211 devices? With the growth of (mostly proprietary) cell phone carrier wireless, you don't want to shut out that.

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-12 Thread Jiri Benc
[removed lkml] On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:24:02 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: [...] --- linux-2.6.15-ds060105.orig/include/net/ieee80211.h2006-01-08 02:10:46.0 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.15-ds060105/include/net/ieee80211.h 2006-01-09 16:22:59.0 +0100 [...] +struct

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-12 Thread Michael Buesch
On Thursday 12 January 2006 19:08, you wrote: [removed lkml] On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:24:02 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: [...] --- linux-2.6.15-ds060105.orig/include/net/ieee80211.h 2006-01-08 02:10:46.0 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.15-ds060105/include/net/ieee80211.h 2006-01-09

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-12 Thread Jiri Benc
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:55:39 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: This ieee80211_device structure is redundant, wconf_device etc. should be in ieee80211_hw. Well, ieee80211_device is basically a hackish replacement for the currently used net_device, which we use for the master device. See the

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-12 Thread Michael Buesch
On Thursday 12 January 2006 20:43, you wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:55:39 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: This ieee80211_device structure is redundant, wconf_device etc. should be in ieee80211_hw. Well, ieee80211_device is basically a hackish replacement for the currently used

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-12 Thread John W. Linville
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:04:24PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: On Thursday 12 January 2006 20:43, you wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:55:39 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: This ieee80211_device structure is redundant, wconf_device etc. should be in ieee80211_hw. Well,

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-12 Thread Michael Buesch
On Thursday 12 January 2006 22:00, you wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:04:24PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: On Thursday 12 January 2006 20:43, you wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:55:39 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: This ieee80211_device structure is redundant, wconf_device etc. should

Re: WCONF, netlink based WE replacement.

2006-01-12 Thread Stuffed Crust
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: I didn't mean channels, just frequencies. To be conformal with standards and regulations, we can allow specific frequencies only. Those frequencies are unambiguously mapped to channels anyway (you have to specify a band of course). So