On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:18 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > Agreed and it should be relatively small change in wpa_supplicant, so > I'm not against doing this. However, at this point I would not yet > recommend trying to use driver_nl80211 as the first option. Once we get > nl80211 bit more complete and at least make sure it does not break > something, adding the automatic driver selection would sound more > reasonable. Though, this would also mean that we depend on drivers never > implementing partial nl80211 support that could trigger wpa_supplicant > into believing that they support nl80211 when they would actually work > much better with wext. That's not _much_ of a problem, considering that driver_nl80211 is using wext, and cfg80211 will continue providing wext calls. Therefore, older versions of wpa_supplicant will continue working on newer kernel versions that have more stuff in nl80211 rather than wext, the only problem could come up when using a "too new" wpa_supplicant on an older kernel with older nl80211. That's easy to detect though by checking which commands nl80211 supports, and refusing to work with it unless all commands that driver_nl80211 needs are implemented. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
