On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:37 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 05:55:27PM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 21:25 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> > > +enum nl80211_auth_type {
> > > + NL80211_AUTHTYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
> >
> > This seems a little odd, is that really useful? And if it is, what do we
> > do? Try all?
>
> This is not supposed to be used and was there only to follow the
> do-not-use-zero-in-nl80211 policy.. However, it looks like the example I
> used (nl80211_iftype) actually uses the unspecified value or well at
> least it is documented as something that could potentially be used. I
> can just remove this and the _after_last, _max from here since they are
> not really supposed to be used anywhere..
Oh, ok, well you only need to reserve 0 for attribute numbers, not for
attribute values.
> > Should we have some more code in cfg80211 to keep track of the BSSes
> > we're authenticated/the one we're associated to, and have some commands
> > to query those from userspace?
>
> It would probably be useful to add this eventually. Whatever is
> requesting the association has most of the information, but it would be
> could to allow other applications have access to it and also remove the
> need to store that in the control application.
I guess we'll kinda need that to have iwconfig print out something useful.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
