On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Hin-Tak Leung<hintak.leung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Johannes, did kernels < 2.6.31 have /sys/class/rfkill ? 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
