On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 21:37 +0100, Dave wrote:
> Regarding patch 11 (the internalise one), would it be better to:
> * continue to export cfg80211_wext_* for now
> * set mac80211s dev->wireless_handler to &cfg80211_wext_handler in
> iface.c (via a #define that's NULL if !CONFIG_WEXT)
> * specify a release when we expect all drivers, or at least those
> anyone cares about, to have converted?
>
> That removes the WE dependency from mac80211 but allows drivers to
> gradually implement cfg80211 support. I originally attempted doing it in
> one hit - that sucked, but may have been due to not having a clear idea
> of how cfg80211 is supposed to work.
Another idea I just had is that we could do everything like my
internalise patch, but have an if (!netdev->wireless_handlers) before
the assignment. That way, people could still have their own wireless
handlers. Additionally, subject to a Kconfig symbol, we could still
export the handlers, something like this:
config NEED_CFG80211_WEXT_HANDLERS
bool
#ifdef CONFIG_NEED_...
#define EXPORT_WEXT(sym) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sym)
#define __wext_static
static inline void cfg80211_assign_wext_handlers(netdev, handlers)
{
if (!dev->wireless_handlers)
dev->wireless_handlers = h;
}
#else
#warn "Having custom wireless handlers is deprecated!!"
#define EXPORT_WEXT(sym)
#define __wext_static static
static inline void cfg80211_assign_wext_handlers(netdev, handlers)
{
dev->wireless_handlers = h;
}
#endif
or something like that. Then drivers that are in transition could select
NEED_... and transition call by call even in the future after we switch
to the central model. Is it worth it? I don't know.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
