Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57907 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753279AbZHMH3m (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:29:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:28:16 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: reinette chatre Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "Zhu, Yi" , "John W. Linville" , "stable@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.30] iwl3945: fix rfkill switch Message-ID: <20090813072816.GA2373@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <1249389350-4158-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <1249512709.30019.4902.camel@rc-desk> <20090806071902.GA9816@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> <1249589758.30019.5034.camel@rc-desk> <20090807063141.GA2523@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> <1249922692.30019.5610.camel@rc-desk> <20090811140908.GA3235@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> <1250014113.30019.5799.camel@rc-desk> <20090812151235.GA3912@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com> <1250095502.30019.5951.camel@rc-desk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1250095502.30019.5951.camel@rc-desk> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:45:02AM -0700, reinette chatre wrote: > > > I also do not understand the need to modify rfkill's internal state. > > > > It's needed for Case1. Additional change of internal rfkill state, which > > I proposed in previous e-mail is against situation when we have: > > STATUS_RF_KILL_HW = 1, STATUS_RF_KILL_SW = 0, RFKILL_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED > > To make it: > > STATUS_RF_KILL_HW = 1, STATUS_RF_KILL_SW = 0, RFKILL_STATE_HARD_BLOCKED > > ok - this makes sense now. In your previous email you also mentioned > that that delta patch was untested. Is it possible for you or anybody > else on that redhat bugzilla to give the new patch a try? Yes, I'm going to rewrite patch, test and resend it. > I think I now understand what is going on. Having worked through all the > possible scenarios makes me more comfortable about his patch considering > the awkward way in which it is forced to solve the problem. I am really > glad we do not need to do this moving forward. I'm happy too. Thanks Stanislaw