From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262716AbTJJA4F (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:56:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262707AbTJJAzz (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:55:55 -0400 Received: from palrel13.hp.com ([156.153.255.238]:14795 "EHLO palrel13.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262703AbTJJAzt (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:55:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:55:48 -0700 To: Linux kernel mailing list , Linux Net mailing list Subject: Re: Wireless Network Maintainer? Message-ID: <20031010005548.GA3573@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Reply-To: jt@hpl.hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Organisation: HP Labs Palo Alto Address: HP Labs, 1U-17, 1501 Page Mill road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. E-mail: jt@hpl.hp.com From: Jean Tourrilhes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nico Schottelius wrote : > > Is there _anyone_ responsable for the wireless (802.11*) drivers in the > Linux kernel? Yes, the individual driver authors. Either check the names in the source code or check my Howto. > - easy interface = support for wireless tools Can't agree me, but I'm biased. This is slowly improving. > - compatibility with 2.5/2.6 modul interface Wireless drivers included in kernel 2.6.X are already compatible. > - support for AP-Master/AP/Ad-Hoc/Monitor Modus (like HostAP can do) There is two aspect there. First, I want the HostAP driver to be included in 2.6.X, and I'm trying to make this happen. Second, Master and Monitor mode can be implemented only in drivers for which the necessary hardware documentation is available, which means only a subset of them. > - device naming scheme should be wlanX -> easier to see what it is There are pros and cons to that. Personally I prefer the approach taken by the aironet driver (ethX + wifiX). The interface the driver present to the kernel is *really* an Ethernet interface. If you really want easy identification, we could take the *BSD approach where every driver use it's own unique device name. > - support for external encryption (kernel modules/user space) like WLSec Let's not reinvent the wheel again. What's wrong with IPsec ? If you want to go that route, at least follow one of the upcomming standard (802.1x, WPA, ...). Jean