On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> Little RF KILL design question from user space perspective. >> What should be desired return value of ifconfig up when HW rfkill is >> on (radio is off). > > This isn't really about rfkill, its design doesn't call for any particular > behaviour. IMHO we should go with the principle of least suprise, and also > more convenience for the user. No, this is about ifconfig up > In the end, it will depend on the capabilities of the hardware, I suppose. > Assuming the hardware CAN bring its interface up without going bonkers > because the transmitter is not transmitting anything, that's exactly what it > should do IMO. > > What it must never do is to unblock the transmiter because of a ifconfig up > :-) > >> rfkill on (radio off) >> ifconfig wlan0 up >> rfkill off (radio on) >> >> Will it be ok for these sequence to require additional ifconfig up to >> make driver to work, providing the first ifconfig up failed? > > It would be nice if it didn't fail the first ifconfig, and therefore needed > nothing special to work other than a rfkill unblock. Everything is doable just 'would be nice' is not good reason enough :) Thanks anyway Tomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
