|| ||Jeff Garzik <jgarzik-AT-pobox.com>|
|| ||Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink|
|| ||Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:52:39 -0400|
|| ||Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde-AT-home.nl>, sfeldma-AT-pobox.com,
Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> And guess what, I'm helping you in the process. Look back at
> all the e-mail I sent to the various thread on the subject, and you
> will clearly see that I'm constructive and giving suggestion on how to
> do best in this process. I even provide patches.
> I don't understand why you are so opposed to my suggestions,
> and what more you expect from me.
> Converging wireless into Linux since 1996. Welcome to the club ;-)
I'm _not_ blaming you for anything. You have certainly contributed a lot.
I've enjoyed working with you in the past, today, and hopefully into the
future as well. I _am_ listening. But I think we have a fundamental
I feel strongly (as you see :)) that the type-opaque interface has got to
go, and that means breaking backwards compatibility in the driver API.
The iw_handler interface breaks rules of C that we shouldn't be breaking.
Today's kernel includes boatloads of reference-counted kobjects, with
strict definitions of lifetime rules. This has exposed endless bugs and
caused a lot of pain, but overall it's a good thing to clean all that up.
Interfaces that store offsets into driver-local structures (iw_handler_def)
violate these lifetime rules by simply assuming you always have access to
the structure of choice.
We want to design driver interfaces that make it tough for the driver
writer to screw up. Excluding yourself, myself, and others on this list, I
think we all know that driver writers can't code their way out of a paper
bag. A properly designed interface lets the compiler flag incorrect code
at the first possible opportunity. Current WE __does__ get the job done
(kudos), but it simply doesn't afford that kind of protection.
to post comments)