Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] d80211: add ioctl to stop data frame tx

From: "Jouni Malinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:01:15 -0700

On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:26:21AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 11:39 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> 
> > What would be the preferred way of doing the conversion here? I think I
> > would prefer to get the radar detection code in as-is and then move all
> > the messages to use a new mechanism as one change once that mechanism
> > becomes available.
> 
> I suppose that depends on how quickly you want these things :) nl80211
> is there for review and I suppose if a bunch of people actually build
> things on top of it we can merge it. As it stands, we could merge it and
> then start building too, if a few more people review it maybe.

Well, it would be nice to get these in quite soon. I know that the
current mechanism works since it has been used for years, but if the
netlink-based solution is considered stable and working and unlikely to
require major changes soon, I don't have anything against using it here.

> > hostapd connection uses number of these frames which are actually not
> > fake management frames, but just frames with different "pseudo header"
> > on the management interface. You can search for ieee80211_msg_ types to
> > see the different types of status messages that are used.
> 
> Yeah, I know. Does anyone else use these or can we simply drop this
> after conversion?

Once there is mechanism to replace all the current functionality, I
would just drop it. There is some meta information, like signal
strength, in the header, so this does not only include event
notifications, but also additional data for frames.

-- 
Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA