Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:53:01 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za> To: imp@village.org (M. Warner Losh) Cc: brooks@one-eyed-alien.net, grog@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man4 wi.4 Message-ID: <200205061453.g46Er1L54189@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20020505.143435.103661399.imp@village.org> from "M. Warner Losh" at "May 5, 2002 02:34:35 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : > : As the one who implemented this in FreeBSD, I think we should strongly > : consider breaking this in 5.0. adhoc should never have been the Lucent > : crap and I really regret that mistake. If nothing else, consider the > : fact that adhoc works correctly with an(4) cards. I'd personaly prefer > : that demo mode be something like link1 since it's evil and should die, > : but I could live with demo-adhoc. > > Sounds good to me. I don't mind breaking it in 5.0, so we'll have 4.x > adhoc means what it means now, and 5.x it will just be an alias for > ibss or ibss-master or whatever makes sense. Should we maybe fold ibss and ibss-master into one option? From reading OpenBSD's driver, I think one of the reasons that they have it separate, is that the Symbol firmware do not support creating an ibss, well at least we don't know how. Or are there times when would want to use ibss without using the "create an ibss" option? About the adhoc option, I can just say it is pretty confusing if you use the an(4) and wi(4) drivers at the moment. :-) My feeling is that the possible breakage that it can cause is less hassles that what we have at the moment where adhoc means different things to different drivers. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200205061453.g46Er1L54189>