On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:45:02AM -0700, reinette chatre wrote: > > > I also do not understand the need to modify rfkill's internal state. > > > > It's needed for Case1. Additional change of internal rfkill state, which > > I proposed in previous e-mail is against situation when we have: > > STATUS_RF_KILL_HW = 1, STATUS_RF_KILL_SW = 0, RFKILL_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED > > To make it: > > STATUS_RF_KILL_HW = 1, STATUS_RF_KILL_SW = 0, RFKILL_STATE_HARD_BLOCKED > > ok - this makes sense now. In your previous email you also mentioned > that that delta patch was untested. Is it possible for you or anybody > else on that redhat bugzilla to give the new patch a try? Yes, I'm going to rewrite patch, test and resend it. > I think I now understand what is going on. Having worked through all the > possible scenarios makes me more comfortable about his patch considering > the awkward way in which it is forced to solve the problem. I am really > glad we do not need to do this moving forward. I'm happy too. Thanks Stanislaw -- 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
