On Monday 28 July 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > 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. The feature window for 2.6.27 closed with the release of 2.6.26, after that only bugfixes can go in. Ivo -- 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
