[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-wpan
Subject:    =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_PROBLEM=ef=bc=9athere_exists_a_wrong_return_value_of_?= =?UTF-8?Q?function_ieee802154=
From:       Stefan Schmidt <stefan () osg ! samsung ! com>
Date:       2016-03-14 15:53:01
Message-ID: 56E6DE5D.5010708 () osg ! samsung ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hello.

On 14/03/16 10:30, Alexander Aring wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:39:12PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> Missing a bit context here as the original message never made it to the
>> list.
>>
> linux-wpan was cc'ed inside the mail, but there was some html stuff
> there... I don't know why it isn't arrived at linux-wpan.

If it had html in it vger would reject it.

> Anyway...
>
> There exists a bugzilla entry for that and John Linville said that I
> should care about that, see [0].

OK

>> On 10/03/16 10:10, Alexander Aring wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think this is a good time to remove the deprecated netlink interface
>>> for 802.15.4.
>>>
>>> Stefan please say your opinion here. There should be really nobody which
>>> use this interface anymore.
>> My mind haven't really changed on this topic. I understand why you want it
>> removed but given that the general rule of the kernel is to have backward
>> compatibility we can't just remove it. Dropping the old netlink interface
>> breaks userspace compatibility, even if it only is for deprecated tools like
>> lowpan-tools, etc.
>>
>> My take on it is that we live with it. Keeping it around but not extending
>> it. Maybe add a warning to dmesg iwhen some application uses the old
>> interface.
>>
>> Is it more code cleanliness/maintenance or bug reports that urge you to get
>> rid of it?
> This is one of the smallest problem, I can live with "live with it". But
> when I need to touch it because "nl802154" and "ieee802154" use the same
> INTERNAL interface, e.g. llsec. I don't want to handle backwards
> compatibility for that.
>
> This complete handling with the damnd backwards compatibility for a
> interface which is totally broken. (Yes I think [0] is one of the
> smallest issues). We getting stucked in developing of 802.15.4 to
> develop a better netlink interface (nl802154).
>
> The old interface I would describe as:
>
> - deprecated
> - broken
> - there exists no official userspace tool to handle everything, e.g.
>    llsec, txpower, csma, etc...
>
> I want to remove it otherwise the branch will die again, because stupid
> handling a broken interface which nobody should use anymore.
>
> My argument is:
>
> Don't forget the 802.15.4 branch is still experimental, no maintainer
> acked this commit [1]. For EXPERIMENTAL things you can be sure that the
> UAPI interface will not be changed later and I would still say this
> branch is EXPERIMENTAL.
>
>
> I also have 3-4 things which we need to change inside the new interface
> (nl802154), because the deprecated already handle it wrong and I simple
> copy&pasted it... but it was wrong. Then handling of two UAPI's which
> need to access the INTERNAL api (cfg802154) will be mostly impossible.

You are sold on it and you are doing a lot of work there. Give it a try.

Maybe you are lucky and it will just go through and we only have to deal 
with a few complaints about lowpan-tools no longer working with 4.6/4.7.
Be prepared though that if everything goes south you might find yourself 
being yelled at by Linus. :) Just saying.

regards
Stefan Schmidt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]