> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Larry Finger wrote: > > > > > If wireless maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert > > > > request to Linus for consideration. > > > > > > I wonder if the reaction would be like this one: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75 > > > > > > :-) > > > > It would be a little like that. > > > > One thread of interest is https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/22/348. Commit > > 24a0aa212ee2 ("cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable") made > > it impossible to select the IPW2200. The patch to allow selecting the > > IPW2200, which automatically selects CFG80211_WEXT has been added to > > wireless-drivers, but it has not yet made it to mainline. Once it > > does, then choosing to build the IPW2200 will provide a workaround. > > > > In my opinion, the need for the IPW2200 to have CFG80211_WEXT means > > that the original commit will likely be reverted, but your voice will help. > > Ok, thanks a lot for another datapoint. I am sending revert patch to Linus > tonight. > I don't see this as another datapoint. All it means is that there are ancient drivers that won't work at all with newer tools and that are taken into consideration while trying to deprecate an API. Now - basically all your argument is on Johannes's comment: "deprecated enough". I think we have a chicken and egg problem here. We can't break things towards userland. Good. But we do want to deprecate this API because lots of valid purely technical reasons. Unfortunately, I don't see what we could do to send a strong signal to userspace tools developers to have them work / plan a move to a modern API. -- 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
