On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > Hmm, I did mention the other option - make rfkill_backport exposes its data structure as '/sys/class/rfkill' instead of '/sys/class/rfkill_backport'. Is there any reason why compat-wireless's rfkill_backport does not called itself 'rfkill' and unload and replace the old rfkill? That would be much neater, and userland tools like hal won't need to know anything about compat-wireless. Hin-Tak -- 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
