On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 10:41 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > Basically I still think having lib80211 is pretty much pointless since > > all future fullmac drivers and mac80211 all need to use cfg80211. > > I like the logical separation for now. At some point they can probably > be viewed as a single unit, but even then I think lib80211 will be > a better name for the amalgamation... :-) Fair enough. Yeah, it would probably make more sense to integrate cfg80211 into lib80211 at some point. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
