Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f204.google.com ([209.85.223.204]:55557 "EHLO mail-iw0-f204.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754008AbZHZW2S (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:28:18 -0400 Received: by iwn42 with SMTP id 42so407096iwn.33 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:28:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3ace41890908261511i3056c049kca82831015ff2aa0@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ace41890908261511i3056c049kca82831015ff2aa0@mail.gmail.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:28:00 -0700 Message-ID: <43e72e890908261528m23b8fe78w209e305f27e68fa1@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: hal, rfkill and compat-wireless (Re: [RFC/RFT] rtl8187: Implement rfkill support) To: Hin-Tak Leung Cc: Johannes Berg , hal@lists.freedesktop.org, htl10@users.sourceforge.net, Larry Finger , Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > (added list hal to To:, since it has become relevant; previous > exchanges of the thread on linux-wireless) > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 13:33 +0000, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: >>> >>>> > Or wait ... are you using compat-wireless? >>>> >>>> Yes, I am. I mentioned this and did wonder if the _backport/ part >>>> in /sys/class is important. >>> >>> Sorry, didn't see. >>> >>> Anyway, that's pretty clearly the reason -- Luis added NETDEV_PRE_UP to >>> some compat*.h but obviously the kernel won't ever call that notifier, >>> so cfg80211 doesn't get a chance to reject the IFUP. No idea how to >>> handle that -- it'll be working fine in a regular tree. >>> >>> Luis, the only way to handle that would be to manually call the PRE_UP >>> notifier from mac80211's subif_open() and if that returns an error >>> (warning: the calling convention is weird) return the error... that's >>> weird but would work. >>> >>> johannes >>> >> >> Hmm, got a bit side-tracked. But hal doesn't know the device having a >> killswitch is still wrong somewhere? >> (i.e. am wondering where we should advertise that ability, or how hal >> works that out) >> >> Hin-Tak >> > > I looked into hal and I can now say that it is certainly not > compat-wireless "rfkill_backport"-aware; apparently all it does is > monitoring entries under /sys/class that it knows about. I made a > quick hack: This is wrong, we just do not need to use rfkill_backport for sysfs stuff, consider sending me patch that removes that hunk for compat-wireless instead and test it. Luis