Re: [PATCH] Revert "cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable"

From: Julian Calaby
Date: Wed Dec 31 2014 - 09:41:29 EST


On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 08:26 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>>> You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless
>>>> maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
>>>> consideration.". However, you did not wait for any response from the
>>>> wireless maintainers nor from the author of the patch you are reverting.
>>>> Seems like an overreaction to me though personally I do not disgree
>>>> with the revert itself.
>>> My understanding from the whole thread was that Emmanuel disagrees with
>>> the revert, and I consider Emmanuel to definitely belong to the "wireless
>>> maintainers" group. If my understanding was wrong on this, sorry for that.
>> You understanding is wrong. This patch has an author and you could I didn't
>> sign-off the patch which is an obvious indication I am not a "wireless maintainer".
>> You didn't even make the minimal effort to check how this patch should be properly
>> routed.
>> Regardless of all this, I didn't say I disagree, I said that we need to find a way to signal
>> the userland developers that an API will be deprecated at some point. I haven't seen
>> any response / suggestion from you on that.
> pr_notice_once("WEXT compatibility has been deprecated since _____" \
> " Upgrade your userspace tools to nl80211!\n");

Sadly, nobody will read that. It needs to be at least an error,
possibly with a big splat to scare people.

Maybe using one of WARN()'s siblings instead.


Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at