On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 01:49:41PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 20:25 -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > * Should umlme be optional or is this desired mandatory down the road? > > It'll be mandatory for anything that we don't currently do in the > kernel, which will probably include > * 802.11r (fast roaming) > * 802.11s (mesh networking) (not entirely sure what management stuff > this includes) > * 802.11w (encrypted management) > * DLS features of 802.11e > * ... more I'm not thinking of right now Can you elaborate some on why you think umlme is required for these (or other) functions? It isn't obvious to me that all of these MLME functions are so complex as to require userland implementations. Forgive my skepticisim, but in the past umlme has been used as a religious hammer. I don't want to keep apparently working/workable code out of the kernel just because someone thinks currently non-existant umlme code would be a better solution. Lacking a mature umlme implementation in-hand, I'm not prepared to accept a preemptive veto on kmlme extensions without seeing the code first. John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - 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
