On 10 February 2016 at 12:12, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2016-02-10 17:53, Dan Williams wrote: >> >> Yeah, I get that now. It's just that to me, something called >> "AIRPLANE_MODE_CHANGE" seems like it should actually change airplane >> mode on/off, which implies killing radios. I wouldn't have had the >> problem if it was named AIRPLANE_MODE_INDICATOR_CHANGE, which makes it >> clear this is simply an indicator and has no actual effect on anything >> other than a LED. > I also agree the AIRPLANE_MODE_INDICATOR_* prefix makes things more clear here. Thanks for the feedback, Dan! > > Yeah, I agree. I'm not even sure that it's a good idea to subsume this into > the regular operations in the API, although that's obviously the easiest > extension. I'll need to think about that a bit more with the code at hand > though. > Initially I have thought about creating and additional RFKill switch for that, but I think it would be a bit hackish since we would have to treat it specially in sysfs attributes and probably other places, and userspace would also need a special case when going through the list of RFKill switches in the system. The proposed solution has equivalent semantics to an RFKill switch, is backward-compatible (users would only ignore the unknown operations and evens -- although gsd has a "default:" case to abort execution on an unknown event) and does not extend the RFKill event struct. One alternative would be to move the control point to a separate device, like /dev/rfkill-airplane-mode, but I'm not sure this is a very elegant approach. Anyway, I'm open to work on changes to the API, but it would be great if you could at least pick or reject the non-polemical patches of the series, so I don't need to carry them anymore. -- João Paulo Rechi Vita http://about.me/jprvita -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
