On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 12:11 -0700, Helmut Schaa wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 26. März 2009 schrieb reinette chatre: > > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 10:50 -0700, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 26. März 2009 schrieb Reinette Chatre: > > > > From: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Remove STATUS_ALIVE checking when HW RF KILL disabled, the bit get > > > > clear in __iwl_down() function; the additional checking will fail and > > > > cause RF can not be turn back on. > > > > > > Are you sure this is needed? I'd argue we should only restart the adapter > > > if it was alive when it got rf_killed. In case the adapter was rf_killed > > > while the interface was down I don't think we want to restart the adapter > > > immediately but first when the interface is taken up again. > > > > We also need to consider if a suspend/resume happens in the middle. > > Without the patch, if you enable rfkill, suspend, resume, disable > > rfkill, then your interface cannot be brought up. > > I guess you refer to the situation where the interface is up, right? > Something like: > > - ifconfig wlan0 up > - press killswitch (kill wireless) > - suspend > - resume > - press killswitch (enable wireless) > - here the interface should still be up > > As the interface is/was up, mac80211's resume handler should restart the > adapter and thus we wouldn't need to restart the adapter in the > rfkill-handler, or did I miss anything? Yes, the resume handler will start the adapter (call "start"), but the actions done by it will exit early because of rfkill being enabled. The STATUS_ALIVE bit will thus not be set after this is completed. Later, when user disables rfkill, we want to restart the adapter to get all this corrected, but this call currently fails because of this check. Reinette -- 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
