Re: [Lcd4linux-devel] plugin_wifi ?

[Xavier V. <xav...@fr...>]

Hello Michael, hello Martin, hello list !

> Well, I'd favour this solution (using ioctl calls), but I would't rush 
> into replacing something that works (plugin_netdev).
> At first glance, trying to handle wireless devices (which supply 
> additional data, which in turn is why there's need for a wifi-plugin to 
> begin with) together with traditional network devices could make the 
> code pretty ugly fast.
That's why I like the sysfs solution, as it provides all the  
 informations ioctl provides without getting hard to implement (open
  the file, copy a buffer, strtod and we are) but there's the backward
 compatibility problem.

> Lets get the wireless stuff taken care of first, and then see how we can 
> merge traditional network devices and wireless devices.
I'm downloaded the wireless-tools source and the source of my wifi card
driver for 2.6, I'll try to experiment ioctl a bit, then we'll decide
what to do

> > We may in that case
> > keep plugin_netdev and write rapidly a plugin_net_wireless which parses
> > /proc/net/wireless (easilly writen too) so they can delay once more the
> > migration to the best kernel ever released ( until 2.8 is out :D )
> I think everybody on this list has understood by now that you are a big 
> fan of 2.6
Yes, I am :)
> - so, if you want to write a "2.6 only" plugin, feel free to do so. But
>  be assured - you won't make _me_ change to 2.6 any time soon ;-) I may
>  set up a test box some day to see if all the apps I need still work
>  under 2.6, but for now, I'm happy to have a system that simply works
>  (giving me time to work on other things - lcd4linux, for example -
>  instead of playing with my linux installation).
Okay, I won't dictate you to migrate to 2.6. But just read the next 4 lines:
2.4 hasn't been really stable until several monthes, but 2.6 is already
stable. Linus has understood the lesson with 2.4 and the 2.5 test phase
has been longer than ever. I use 2.6 since 2.6.2 and never had big
problems with it (just one: vmware didn't worked, but I didn't use it)

>  or go ahead and code the wifi plugin for 2.6, and I'll code a 2.4
>  plugin for the rest of us).
Maybe it would be the best solution if ioctl are too complicated. Each
would be quite easy to code (one based on plugin_netdev, the other based
on i2c_sensors) while the ioctl one would be quite hard to code, IMHO

> > The best solution would be ioctl, but I don't know how to do this, and I
> > don't know if it's worth the price to do this manner. If you know ioctl
> > and wants to dig this way, just raise your hand :)
> <Raises hand>
> I'll take care of it. I can't say when (I unfortunately had to get some 
> "real" work done this weekend (as in, "stuff one gets paid for"), but 
> I'll try to put something together by next weekend.
> </Raises hand>
Err... does somebody know if ioctl are _really_ faster than reading
procfs/sysfs ? I think ioctl imply (at least for this case) more memory
problems and uggly code.

Bye !
-- 
Xavier VELLO <xav...@fr...>