Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751406AbVLESw3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:52:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751403AbVLESw3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:52:29 -0500 Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:33932 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751406AbVLESw2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:52:28 -0500 Message-ID: <43948C65.4060405@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:52:21 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Buesch , Jouni Malinen CC: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Feyd Subject: Re: [Bcm43xx-dev] Broadcom 43xx first results References: <200512051208.16241.mbuesch@freenet.de> <20051205141935.GC8940@jm.kir.nu> <200512051528.33146.mbuesch@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <200512051528.33146.mbuesch@freenet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "srv2.dvmed.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: In general, Jouni's points are good, as are Michael's. The key question is about the size of the SoftMAC code. If its huge, an ieee80211 sub-module makes sense. If it's not, then adding the code to net/ieee80211 makes a lot more sense. [...] Content analysis details: (0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [69.134.188.146 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 887 Lines: 23 In general, Jouni's points are good, as are Michael's. The key question is about the size of the SoftMAC code. If its huge, an ieee80211 sub-module makes sense. If it's not, then adding the code to net/ieee80211 makes a lot more sense. Certainly some chips will use more ieee80211 code than others. This is no different than ethernet NICs: some make use of TSO and checksum offload code included in every kernel, while for other NICs the kernel TSO/csum code is just dead weight. In general, adding directly to net/ieee80211 is preferred, UNLESS there are overriding reasons not to do so (such as a huge size increase). Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/