On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:53:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Who started this anti-nl80211 thing anyway? I still don't see what's so > wrong with sending frames down a PF_NETLINK socket rather than a > PF_PACKET socket. Perhaps it was just my misunderstanding about the monitor interface tx injection patches; I though this mechanism should be used for hostapd and user space MLME, which I consider wrong. Johannes' comment about different needs (and thus having both injection through monitor iface and through netlink) makes perfectly sense, though. Andy, is using a monitor interface (for both injecting and receiving of frames) acceptable for you? If yes, let's drop my proposal (I said it might turn up to be useless :-)), apply patches for monitor iface injection and implement a netlink soultion as a replacement of the current management interface. Thanks, Jiri -- Jiri Benc SUSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
