On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 17:02 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> if sta_state will be allowed to return an error, instead of adding a > >> new backward compatibility implementation to mac80211 we can just > >> change all the current drivers to register for sta_state(), and > >> operate on auth->assoc and assoc->auth transitions instead of > >> sta_add/sta_remove. > > > > Right, that's the alternative, but it would be easier to add the code in > > mac80211 I think? And if we add a "NOT_EXIST" state we can completely > > make sta_add/sta_remove be only there for drivers that don't need more > > advanced state? > > > oh, so sta_/add/remove and sta_state will be 2 different mechanisms? > now it all looks better. Yeah I was thinking they would (should?) be. > i guess implementing it in mac80211 is easier. hopefully, most of the > drivers will move to the new model and finally we'll be able to delete > the backward compatibility layer (which is always an annoying thing). Right. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
