Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:21:17 -0700
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
CC: Luis Rodriguez <Luis.Rodriguez@Atheros.com>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: consolidate on a single escape_essid
	implementation
Message-ID: <20080925002117.GH9187@tesla> (sfid-20080925_022127_695240_6538C10A)
References: <1222294536-24367-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <20080924232453.GG9187@tesla> <20080924233234.GE3639@tuxdriver.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <20080924233234.GE3639@tuxdriver.com>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:32:34PM -0700, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:24:53PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 03:15:36PM -0700, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > This is also an excuse to create the long rumored lib80211 module...
> >
> > How about stuffing it in something like:
> >
> > include/linux/wlandevice.h
> >
> > Is there a benefit to having a module for it as this time?
> 
> The escape_essid function is currently not inlined.  Are you
> arguing that it should be?

Just an idea, yes, but that's just because it didn't seem
that escape_essid() in itself was enough reason to create a
shiny new module.

> Otherwise it needs to live _somewhere_.
> The cfg80211 module might make sense, except that the libertas,
> ipw2100, and ipw2200 drivers don't use cfg80211 (at least for now).

If we want a framework for FullMAC drivers I think cfg80211
can play that role just fine as I believe it was designed that way.
We could potentialy just add non-wiphy helper routines in there for now
as well if all we need is a home for them. What if we want to make
use of some of these in other cfg80211 drivers or maybe mac80211?

> Besides, you have to start _somewhere_.  I have a feeling that this
> happened in the first place because there was nowhere for drivers to
> share bits of code like this (other than mac80211 or iee80211).

Agreed, although I do like to think cfg80211 can play this role
as well, unless we want to remain strict about requiring a wiphy
for all its callers.

> > Which reminds me, net/ieee80211/ should be ipw'ized now that the
> > old softmac drivers are gone.
> >
> > mcgrof@tesla ~/wireless-testing/drivers/net/wireless (git::v2.6.27-rc6)$ grep -nHr "#include <net/ieee80211.h>" *
> > airo.c:50:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > atmel.c:70:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > hostap/hostap_main.c:29:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > hostap/hostap_hw.c:49:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > ipw2100.h:42:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > ipw2200.h:51:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > libertas/types.h:10:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > libertas/main.c:17:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > libertas/dev.h:13:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > libertas/wext.c:11:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > libertas/cmd.c:7:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > orinoco.c:88:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > rndis_wlan.c:44:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > wl3501.h:5:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> > zd1201.c:24:#include <net/ieee80211.h>
> >
> > Whatever these suckers are using can probably be slapped in there as
> > well. But yea -- we just need to get it done huh.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I figure there are probably other bits that can be shared, but most of
> them probably require at least _some_ recoding.  This is a no-brainer
> and it "breaks the ice" for more follow-on work.

Sure, my vote goes towards cfg80211 with helpers which are non wiphy specific.
The reason being that these drivers *could* also potentially be ported
to use cfg80211 eventually and in fact I think this should be encouraged
to help cfg80211 move forward to support them and so eventually
[if/once] we have a Linux 3.0 we can ditch Wireless Extensions
completely.

I think an lib80211 would provide for more excuses for people to stuff
things in there and help them never cross the line into cfg80211.

  Luis