On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:43:32 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 10:22 +0100, Corentin Chary wrote: > > Dear system infrastructure people, > > Do you think a KEY_WIRELESS_CYCLE key would have any application ? > > Not really. > > The naming of the key ultimately will not matter one bit, because it'll > be misnamed on most platforms anyway, unless we want to do DMI matching > or something to name the key. And even then, if there's a wifi key but > no bluetooth key, users may prefer to have the wifi key act as a cycle > key instead. > > Therefore, this ought to all be policy in the rfkill daemon. > rfkill-input will be going away as soon as somebody writes a simple > daemon that allows doing such things, I really don't see us adding > support for a cycle key to the kernel code, and for the userspace code > it doesn't matter since users will configure it independent of the key > code anyway. This sounds reasonable to me, as the wireless guy in the KDE camp. I don't want to have to handle these keypresses in a user session anyway - I prefer that NetworkManager picks up on them and notifies the client of the state change. Will -- 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
