User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account



Posted Oct 5, 2006 21:47 UTC (Thu) by simonl (guest, #13603)
Parent article: The final wireless extension?

> The wireless extensions, it seems, may be extended no more.

Jon, you are a brilliant writer.

(Log in to post comments)


Posted Oct 6, 2006 1:05 UTC (Fri) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

Seconded. I'm just a dumb user yet I understand, in general, most everything Jon writes. How does he do that?

"The wireless extensions, it seems, may be extended no more"

Posted Oct 13, 2006 2:26 UTC (Fri) by slamb (guest, #1070) [Link]

It's good writing, but I don't think it's actually true. Couldn't the existing version number be frozen
at 20 and a "real" version number added as another ioctl()? The behavior on unknown ioctl()s is
well-defined, so there'd be a reliable way to know if the API was extended in a different way than
originally planned for version 21.

This would make the check-for-21-or-higher tools think it's 20, yet newly written tools know
it's something else. They could even negotiate a version to use.

it's an ugly solution and perhaps not worthwhile, but it's possible.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds