Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f21.google.com ([209.85.218.21]:60440 "EHLO mail-bw0-f21.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751742AbYLRMzN (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:55:13 -0500 Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so1476351bwz.13 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:55:11 -0800 (PST) To: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [RFC][RFT] fix iwlagn hw-rfkill while the interface is down Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:54:45 +0100 Cc: mohamed salim abbas , Helmut Schaa , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, tomas.winkler@intel.com, yi.zhu@intel.com, reinette.chatre@intel.com References: <200812161307.07193.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> <20081217202943.GB3516@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20081217202943.GB3516@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200812181354.45839.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> (sfid-20081218_135519_146370_DAE47DDF) From: Helmut Schaa Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Mittwoch, 17. Dezember 2008 schrieb John W. Linville: > I think it still isn't settled in everyone's minds whether rfkill > only matters if the device is "up" or if it is something that > e.g. NetworkManager might want to monitor as a clue to bring the > device up or down in response to rfkill changes. I guess we need a concrete definition if the rfkill state is bound to iface up/down or not. However I think it's somwhat awkward to expose an (maybe) incorrect rfkill state if the interface is down. Either the state should be correct or not exposed at all. Helmut