On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 00:04 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Philip Langdale wrote: > > > Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > >> You don't seem to be using rfkill_force_state() which is required to inform the rfkill > > >> layer about the state changes. > > > > > > Hmm? According to rfkill.txt, one can either use force_state() or implement the > > > get_state() hook, and I have done the later. If this is not the correct method, > > > can you please explain when I should be using force_state? > > > > There is a bunch of rfkill bug fix patches that was not merged in > > wireless-testing yet (which is a pity, it would be really good if they could > > go into 2.6.27). One of those patches fixes the docs to make it clear that > > Lots of wireless people (including John) were at OLS this past week, so > it's not entirely surprising that patch merging might have been slow. That would explain it, yes... Well, I sure hope this means the patches still have a non-zero chance of being sent to mainline for 2.6.27 :-) I am not up to date on how merges are usually handled in the wireless and net subsystems. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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
