Patch to split roaming out of wpa_supplicant

[Blaise Gassend]

Hi Jouni,

Thanks for the reply.

> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:56:01AM -0700, Blaise Gassend wrote:
>> The key question remains, however. Would the hooks that allow people
>> writing their own roaming code to be notified of events that concern
>> roaming be considered for inclusion, or is there no interest? If the
>> answer is yes then I am willing to work to get a patch that people
>> find acceptable. But if a priori the answer is no, then there is no
>> point in my wasting time getting the patch into presentable form.
>
> This is somewhat of a difficult question to answer without seeing the
> patch first, so you may not get a clear yes/no answer to that before
> such a patch exist.. ;-)

I understand. I have put together a wiki page that should give a much
more precise idea of what this patch is:
http://pr.willowgarage.com/wiki/BlaiseGassend/WpaSupplicantPatch

This is just a diff of my current tree with the upstream tree. Since
that would be pretty difficult to wade through, I have commented the
patch. I think that it should give a good feel for what I am proposing
to provide with minimal effort on my part. I'll do cleanup once I have
a better idea of whether these patches would get accepted upstream.

The best case scenario for me is of course to be able to get hooks
added upstream that will allow me to track upstream without having to
maintain a patch of my own.

> There has been interest in making it easier to extend wpa_supplicant
> operations in this area, so I think it would be fair to say there is
> some interest.

Cool, that was my hope. :)

> I cannot really say that I have taken a closer look at the hooks you are
> using (is there a patch file somewhere showing those without having to
> go through a svn repository of files?),

Now there is.

>                 but I would expect that an
> easier first step in getting this included would have indeed been to
> extend D-Bus or wpa_cli interface (you mentioned that in the previous
> message).

My suspicion is that extending D-Bus or wpa_cli would be a much more
intrusive patch, and I would be worried about breaking existing code.
Anyhow, have a look at the page I put up, and we can discuss more in
depth at that point.

Cheers,
Blaise