Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:39387 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030589AbXB0Kjb (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:39:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: rename d80211 -> mac80211 From: Johannes Berg To: Jiri Benc Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070227112808.2fc32c6a@logostar.upir.cz> References: <20070227032756.GA6569@tuxdriver.com> <20070227112808.2fc32c6a@logostar.upir.cz> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-bLx/aMRsdcGDgHzF8v1z" Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:39:06 +0100 Message-Id: <1172572747.3870.234.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-bLx/aMRsdcGDgHzF8v1z Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 11:28 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > When we are at it, I think the module name should be 'mac80211.ko' and no= t > '80211.ko'. This means renaming of mac80211.c (I suggest mac80211_proto.c= or > mac80211_main.c). Does it sounds reasonable? Should I make a patch? This has bothered me for long. Can't we just call it main.c? I mean, it's in mac80211/main.c so there's no chance of confusion... What's the point in having mac80211/mac80211_something.c? johannes --=-bLx/aMRsdcGDgHzF8v1z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBF5ApK/ETPhpq3jKURAqVLAKCyBOeWs55yE92JHRF5X1Bbm87dXgCggcCf RlzFHlgJKCT0tL6UHspXsbg= =1A2A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-bLx/aMRsdcGDgHzF8v1z--