Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:55967 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751006AbYKLVbL (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:31:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:15:30 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Ivo van Doorn Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , Alan Jenkins Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] rfkill fixes for 2.6.28-rc3 Message-ID: <20081112211530.GH2411@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20081112_223116_784090_795A741F) References: <1225730537-2679-1-git-send-email-hmh@hmh.eng.br> <200811031747.16326.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <20081103170243.GB2417@khazad-dum.debian.net> <200811031820.41165.IvDoorn@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200811031820.41165.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 06:20:40PM +0100, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > On Monday 03 November 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Nov 2008, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > On Monday 03 November 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > This small patchset contains two fixes to issues in the suspend/resume > > > > handling of the rfkill class core. > > > > > > > > It needs to go to 2.6.28. These patches are based on 2.6.28-rc3. > > > > > > Are they real regressions or normal bugfixes? > > > > I am not sure if they regress anything, but I am pretty sure there is no > > bugzilla entry about them yet. I have added two more interested parties to > > the CC. > > > > So, if there is a strong feeling this would best be held until the next > > merge window, I can certainly respin the patches to on top of > > wireless-testing... > > Well I'll give my ACK to the 2 patches, but I'll let john decide if they > are "regression" enough for 2.6.28. ;) So I keep looking at these patches, and I'm not sure about them. It seems that they restore the rfkill state after resume to what it was before the suspend. What I am unsure about is whether or not that is the appropriate thing to do. I suppose it makes sense under the rule of least surprise. I guess the safer alternative would be to always resume with rfkill enabled, but that is probably undesirable in the most common case. So, I have no objection to these patches. Still, I don't see how they qualify for 2.6.28. How serious do you think this potential problem really is? John -- John W. Linville Linux should be at the core linville@tuxdriver.com of your literate lifestyle.