On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:32:13PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > Agree. I can't even recall using "ip" ever. iw help system does provide > command specific help. The phy keyword is both a command and a selector key, > which I realize is confusing to the user, eg. 'iw help info' does provide > help for the 'info' subcommand. Yeah, the confusing part is that "ip" tends to use "verb object" scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was trying to emulate. So for ip, you do something like ip link info eth0 Where as for "iw" it's almost exactly backwards, i.e.: iw wlan0 info It's actually rather unfortunate that there is no consistency between many of these tools, for example: ethtool --show-features eth0 If we were going to create a new interface, wouldn't be nice if we could have some kind of consistency? Sigh; oh well, water under the bridge at this point. > Thanks. If there are still drivers, upstream or out-of-tree, providing only > WEXT API this will not work unless iwconfig/iwlist can distinguish those > from cfg80211-based drivers (which is possible) and fallback to WEXT ioctl > syscalls. Just not sure if it is worth the effort. As you stated below, it > does not seem "evil" to retain WEXT if that is providing users what they > need. Is it really that much effort? Unless there is some license incompatibility nonsense (i.e., GPLv2 vs GPLv3), the code's already there in the wireless-tools source. It would just be a matter of trying the new ioctls first, and then falling back to the WEXT ones if needed, right? Cheers, - Ted -- 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
