[Olsr-dev] NL80211 link quality patch and GIT repository

[Ferry Huberts]

On 16-07-12 19:07, Kees-Jan Hermans wrote:
> Is there a projection for a 'configure' like script in a roadmap of
> sorts? Or is it completely out of the picture?

AFAIK it's not on anybody's agenda.
If you want to do it, go ahead ;-)

Me, I'm sort-of waiting for v2 to come around

>
> KJ
>
> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote:
>> In this case we would have different plugins for the "wireless data
>> gathering", one for each operation system.
>>
>> If we get to this point, we might of course think about joining the
>> plugins in a common name.
>>
>> Henning
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner
>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now that might be true, but it could change.
>>>
>>> .hc
>>>
>>> On 07/13/2012 05:07 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>> A nl80211 based plugin would not be feasible on non linux-systems anyways.
>>>>
>>>> Henning
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner
>>>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you do end up adding libnl support, I would recommend using as
>>>>> specific macros as possible.  It sounds like __linux__ is much too
>>>>> general.  GNU/Linux and Android both define __linux__, for example, and
>>>>> it really means "depends on the Linux kernel".  You might consider
>>>>> __gnu_linux__ if libnl isn't feasible on Android.
>>>>>
>>>>> So for libnl, ideally there would be a macro for libnl, so people who
>>>>> don't have the libnl headers but are building on GNU/Linux would not
>>>>> have issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> .hc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/09/2012 03:49 PM, Kees-Jan Hermans wrote:
>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to be precise, I encountered two recent versions of Debian where one
>>>>>> would have all userland wireless functionality in libnl, and it would
>>>>>> have API-version #defines (CONFIG_LIBNL20 and CONFIG_LIBNL30), and one
>>>>>> that had that library completely split up (in libnl, libnl-nf,
>>>>>> libnl-cli, libnl-route, libnl-genl), and none of those #defines. So I
>>>>>> thought, I'd approach this in the following manner:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Our patch currently only works on Linux (so WIN32 and BSD would have
>>>>>> to have some elegant message saying 'Sorry, you can't use this right
>>>>>> now' - this is going to be solved in the code by a '#ifdef __linux__',
>>>>>> but in the makefile I'd need to be able to switch on the fact that we're
>>>>>> using Linux or not (I think I've seen a few instances of that in the
>>>>>> Makefiles already), in order to determine whether or not it's going to
>>>>>> run the script at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Upon discovery of a few Linux NL-quirks by the script, either a
>>>>>> Makefile inclusion file is produced, or the present Makefile is altered,
>>>>>> whichever has your preference (the former has the advantage that running
>>>>>> the script doesn't alter the GIT state of the present Makefile).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the absence of a proper 'configure' script, this is the only elegant
>>>>>> solution I could think of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:17 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>>>>> Sure, that's possible with make, which headers and functions are you talking about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that most likely, you'll want to use #ifdef macros.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .hc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Kees-Jan Hermans wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, thanks. Turns out that what I thought was new, was old, and vice
>>>>>>>> versa. Spent some of the weekend adapting a patch against the old code.
>>>>>>>> My mistake I suppose - teach me the basics of this here project ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, some patching up was necessary anyhow (mostly, unfortunately,
>>>>>>>> due to the fact that there is no stable nl80211 userland API on Linux,
>>>>>>>> differing wildly among distributions and no real sure way to know what
>>>>>>>> version you're dealing with on the basis of #defines and whatnot)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which leads me to another question: is there something in the course of
>>>>>>>> 'make' that I could use to create a 'configure' like situation
>>>>>>>> (discovery of certain uses of header files, function prototypes and
>>>>>>>> defines) ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> KJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:49 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/09/2012 04:45 PM, Kees-Jan Hermans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've been working on renewing the patch for using wireless lan metrics
>>>>>>>>>> as part of the link quality cost calculation, but I've been a bit
>>>>>>>>>> confused as to how the repository works; it seems that the default
>>>>>>>>>> 'master' branch is old, and the 'stable' branch is where everyone is
>>>>>>>>>> committing their new code against. Is that correct? I'm just asking,
>>>>>>>>>> because in other places, such nomenclature would suggest a different,
>>>>>>>>>> and opposite, function.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, thats right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We were also in the process of discussing a change in the "where to
>>>>>>>>> commit and how to do it" policy here when I got hit by an "eat up a
>>>>>>>>> whole week of time" thing...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hope we will restart the discussion soon and sort it out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Henning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Olsr-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> (spam-protected)
>>>>>>>> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Olsr-dev mailing list
>>>>> (spam-protected)
>>>>> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven Hawkings about cosmic inflation: "An increase of billions of
>> billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that
>> was before the present government."
>>
>

-- 
Ferry Huberts