Return-path: Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.140.247.100]:44917 "EHLO perninha.conectiva.com.br" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753183AbZHXSKJ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:10:09 -0400 From: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski To: "Hin-Tak Leung" Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] rtl8187: Implement rfkill support Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:10:10 -0300 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Larry Finger References: <200908220038.35564.herton@mandriva.com.br> <3ace41890908221459j70e31c20ufa5ea03973a16e0a@mail.gmail.com> <3ace41890908231238h32b85839qe74bce2852103402@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3ace41890908231238h32b85839qe74bce2852103402@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200908241510.10968.herton@mandriva.com.br> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Em Dom 23 Ago 2009, ?s 16:38:43, Hin-Tak Leung escreveu: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Herton Ronaldo > > Krzesinski wrote: > >> This change implements rfkill support for RTL8187B and RTL8187L devices, > >> using new cfg80211 rfkill API. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski > > > > Tested-by: Hin-Tak Leung > > > > Neat! > > > > I ran a ping to the router while flicking the switch on and off, and > > have 'ping: sendmsg: Network is unreachable' in the middle. dmesg also > > shows > > It appears that I wrote prematurely - flicking the switch with the > patch seems to just do the equivalent of ifconfig down. Yes, the equivalent of ifconfig down is what cfg80211 rfkill does in this case. > (before the patch, the switch has no effect). However, NetworkManager > soon notices the interface going down and ifup it again. So I have > simply got a 30s to 1 minute disruption in connectivity. This is strange, may be NetworkManager does something extra and for some reason manages to wake up the interface again? I thought it would be unable to "if up" the interface since -ERFKILL should be returned to it when switch is off... > > Is this intentional? I thought it is supposed to actually switch off > the hardware, or is this how the code supposed to work? > Maybe some component needs to let NM knows not to reenanble the device. About taking interface down, thats expected, but I don't know about NetworkManager, I was expecting it to be unable to "if up" the interface again. > > Hin-Tak > -- []'s Herton