On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Hin-Tak Leung<hintak.leung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (added list hal to To:, since it has become relevant; previous > exchanges of the thread on linux-wireless) > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung<hintak.leung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Johannes Berg<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 13:33 +0000, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: >>> >>>> > Or wait ... are you using compat-wireless? >>>> >>>> Yes, I am. I mentioned this and did wonder if the _backport/ part >>>> in /sys/class is important. >>> >>> Sorry, didn't see. >>> >>> Anyway, that's pretty clearly the reason -- Luis added NETDEV_PRE_UP to >>> some compat*.h but obviously the kernel won't ever call that notifier, >>> so cfg80211 doesn't get a chance to reject the IFUP. No idea how to >>> handle that -- it'll be working fine in a regular tree. >>> >>> Luis, the only way to handle that would be to manually call the PRE_UP >>> notifier from mac80211's subif_open() and if that returns an error >>> (warning: the calling convention is weird) return the error... that's >>> weird but would work. >>> >>> johannes >>> >> >> Hmm, got a bit side-tracked. But hal doesn't know the device having a >> killswitch is still wrong somewhere? >> (i.e. am wondering where we should advertise that ability, or how hal >> works that out) >> >> Hin-Tak >> > > I looked into hal and I can now say that it is certainly not > compat-wireless "rfkill_backport"-aware; apparently all it does is > monitoring entries under /sys/class that it knows about. I made a > quick hack: This is wrong, we just do not need to use rfkill_backport for sysfs stuff, consider sending me patch that removes that hunk for compat-wireless instead and test it. Luis -- 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
