On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:23:55AM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > On Dec 12, 2007 7:45 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > NACK. Which virtual interface should get this? wmaster sounds like the > > "obvious" candidate but we want to get rid of it ASAP. And the others > > ones are pretty wrong because you can, technically, have a wiphy without > > any virtual interfaces on it. > > > Just a thought. What if all virtual interfaces will quasi implements > it. It doesn't matter if all the interfaces answers the same. Since > these are get only operations the mutual exclusion shouldn't be so > hard. All interfaces will support equally the handlers. But I'm not > sure about other ethool handlers. > If wmaster goes will be all virtual interfaces equal citizens ? Has anyone taken the trouble to analyze the various ethtool operations to see which ones even make sense for wireless devices? That might make a better starting point for discussing how to implement whatever remains. 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
