On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 06:20:40PM +0100, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > On Monday 03 November 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Nov 2008, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > On Monday 03 November 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > This small patchset contains two fixes to issues in the suspend/resume > > > > handling of the rfkill class core. > > > > > > > > It needs to go to 2.6.28. These patches are based on 2.6.28-rc3. > > > > > > Are they real regressions or normal bugfixes? > > > > I am not sure if they regress anything, but I am pretty sure there is no > > bugzilla entry about them yet. I have added two more interested parties to > > the CC. > > > > So, if there is a strong feeling this would best be held until the next > > merge window, I can certainly respin the patches to on top of > > wireless-testing... > > Well I'll give my ACK to the 2 patches, but I'll let john decide if they > are "regression" enough for 2.6.28. ;) So I keep looking at these patches, and I'm not sure about them. It seems that they restore the rfkill state after resume to what it was before the suspend. What I am unsure about is whether or not that is the appropriate thing to do. I suppose it makes sense under the rule of least surprise. I guess the safer alternative would be to always resume with rfkill enabled, but that is probably undesirable in the most common case. So, I have no objection to these patches. Still, I don't see how they qualify for 2.6.28. How serious do you think this potential problem really is? John -- John W. Linville Linux should be at the core linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx of your literate lifestyle. -- 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
