Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:46813 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751584AbXFRCKj (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:10:39 -0400 Subject: Re: wireless userspace MLME and generic netlink vs. multicast (was: Re: [Take 2] mac80211 IEEE802.11e/WMM code cleanup) From: Zhu Yi To: Johannes Berg Cc: Michael Wu , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , David Lamparter , Thomas Graf , netdev In-Reply-To: <1182081831.23681.29.camel@johannes.berg> References: <20070611085950.GA5540@mail.intel.com> <200706161129.13782.flamingice@sourmilk.net> <1182019869.9058.57.camel@johannes.berg> <200706161516.16447.flamingice@sourmilk.net> <1182081831.23681.29.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:08:47 +0800 Message-Id: <1182132527.4092.90.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 14:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > It sounds to me like you're proposing that wpa_supplicant is the only > supported userspace MLME and that wpa_cli is the only way to configure > it, basically. I sure hope that isn't so. OK. This is the key of the discussion. Do we take wpa_supplicant the only implementation of userspace MLME or even decision making (ie. DLS config) daemon? If so, we don't need the API. Otherwise we'd better have the API in the kernel because we cannot expect both userspace MLME implentation A and B support the same API (via IPC) for configuration. Thanks, -yi