On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:20:08PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:04:33AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 12:59 +0200, Holger Schurig wrote:
> > > > I don't get your point. The patch I submitted fixes an Ooops in the
> > > > driver, due to wrong handling of an API. What does that have to do with
> > > > principle discussions about the frameworks in use?
> > >
> > > I asked if there is a better method, and you said that you would test a better
> > > solution. That means that someone else should make a better solution.
> > >
> > > I just pointed out that I won't be the one who creates the better solution,
> > > because for fundamental reasons I don't see the libertas+cfg80211 approach
> > > going forward. That issue has nothing to do with you or your patch, so please
> > > don't feel offended or confused.
> >
> > Fine; just rip out the mesh code and do the vanilla cfg80211 conversion
> > for infra & adhoc, and we'll add the mesh code back later. I don't have
> > time to do the cfg80211 bits, neither do the OLPC guys (AFAIK), so lets
> > take advantage of your willingness to do this and just move the driver
> > forward.
>
> Someone post a feature removal patch, please?
Ping?
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
> Ping?
Pong.
I'm a bit swamped with other stuff, so I can't do that right now. That's the
pity of someone who can only use this-and-then on kernel projects.