On 12/16/2015 02:56 PM, Adam R. Welle wrote:
Could somebody provide background information on why the decision was
made to use a second address for the netlink frames instead of the
same address as was used for the non-netlink frames?
I would be fine with always using the first address instead of the
second, in case that helps someone.
We could also set the address at creation time easily enough. Then it
could still be unique across many machines if you managed it.
I actually apply a patch for that. I have added a module parameter which
is used as the MAC address for the first radio, and I increment the final
octet for each additional radio. This is so that my users do not have
to manually reset the MAC address to get a unique one. I apply the address
to both addresses mentioned above though I only use the netlink datapath.
If there is interest in this I can submit it as an RFC patch tomorrow.
I'd rather see support for specifying an arbitrary MAC upon creation
with a netlink attribute than a module parameter...
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
