On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 17:16 +0200, Alina Friedrichsen wrote: > Hello! > > > Anyway, I think you're confused because cfg80211_assoc_request looks > > like cfg80211_ibss_params. Trust me -- that will change. > > How much? It will pass in a cfg80211_bss structure instead of all those parameters once we move all the stuff into cfg80211. > > Either way I'm not going to argue this with you anyway, I've already > > decided to do it this way. You'd have to find many many people who agree > > with you to convince me otherwise. > > That is not an technical argumentation. That is only plead on human hierarchy. :/ True. But I'm not much interested in technical arguments about this point since I and others are convinced that this way is better. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
