Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38629 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752069AbYG1PQT (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:16:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mac80211: allow no mac address until firmware load From: Dan Williams To: Johannes Berg Cc: Michael Buesch , Luis Carlos Cobo , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1217257628.15381.2.camel@johannes.berg> References: <48763814.27052c0a.1794.2095@mx.google.com> <200807281544.33509.mb@bu3sch.de> <1217253397.6364.2.camel@localhost> <200807281600.39103.mb@bu3sch.de> <1217257174.28198.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1217257628.15381.2.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:14:00 -0400 Message-Id: <1217258040.28198.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> (sfid-20080728_171622_494191_B993B77A) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 17:07 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 10:59 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > If that's really a problem, yes. 01:00:00:00:00:00 is still better > > > than a pseudo random MAC, IMO. It's immediately obvious to the user > > > that the MAC currently is not set. > > > > How about 44:44:44:44:44:44 like orinoco uses for bogus BSSID? If we > > can, let's not keep creating yet more bogus MAC addresses. > > Either way, the problem is that these will confuse udev if you have two > at the same time, no? the udev script I attached from Fedora 9 already ignores devices with 00:00:00::: so I don't think we'd have a problem with that. Screw the Xerox thing, all zeros is just bogus and tons of stuff treats it that way already. Dan