[clearview-discuss] 2007/527 Addendum for Clearview Vanity Naming and Nemo Unification

[Sebastien Roy]

Kais Belgaied wrote:
> 
> this sounds a little upside-down.
> A driver has to advertise a negative capability, essentially saying 
> "Hey, I can't handle this feature"
> as opposed to the more intuitive approach: drivers that can handle 
> native VLAN expose a capab (MAC_CAPAB_NATIVEVLAN),
> and those who don't do not.
> Any reason for this choice?

This discussion veered off a little bit, and I want to bring it back 
on-topic and make sure that progress is being made on this case.  Kais, 
was your original question answered?

To summarize, the only driver expected to implement this is the softmac 
driver introduced by UV (PSARC/2006/499).  The capability's semantics 
were defined in such a way to not require every other driver from having 
to care about its existence.

-Seb