On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 11:21 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > But I DO heavily suggest that we inform userspace differently when state was > lost (i.e. when it absolutely HAS to reconfigure the device or there are no > chances of data passing through). > > Right now, it HAS that information in a roundabout way: if the device > disappears (hotunplug), state was lost (duh! :-p) If it stays around, no > state was lost... > > And, as an user, I'd be rather annoyed if suddenly I couldn't easily and > cheaply just hit the rfkill hotkey (softswitch) to kill and unkill my WLAN > while browsing, and stopping a few minutes to read the screen... because > every time I unkilled, the system would churn, deassociate and reassociate > and be otherwise annoying doing a reconfiguration it didn't absolutely have > to do. > > In other words: make it possible to be configurable! From the kernel POV > that just means we need to have to publish to userspace the fact that it has > to reconfigure when there is not a full hotunplug/hotplug being done. Way overkill. Anything more than a few seconds of rfkill will require the "churn" anyway. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
