From: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
Cc: Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@intel.com>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question on rfkill double block
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:11:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1215450664.17128.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080704195543.GB27898@khazad-dum.debian.net>
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 16:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> > That would be more useful than the current enum, yes.
>
> Dan, you do have a strong user case for "just software rfkilled", "just
> hardware rfkilled" and "soft+hard rfkilled" as opposed to simply "software
> rfkilled" and "hardware rfkilled, maybe software rfkilled as well" ?
No, I don't have a _NetworkManager_ usecase for being able to
distinguish between HW and HW+SW. Just an observation that stuff other
than NM might want to figure that out for UI or something.
But if the HW block is on, NM doesn't care about softblock because you
can't use the radio anyway. If the HW switch is unblocked, NM will
un-SW-block the radio anyway, since HW-unblock is definitely a
user-initiated option and signals user intent to unblock the radio
irregardless of SW block state from something else.
Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-07 17:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-02 7:03 Question on rfkill double block Zhu Yi
2008-07-02 17:03 ` Dan Williams
2008-07-04 19:55 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-07 17:11 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2008-07-07 19:48 ` Fabien Crespel
2008-07-07 20:47 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-08 5:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2008-07-08 15:05 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-02 19:32 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-05 21:28 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-07-06 0:20 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-07 4:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2008-07-07 16:56 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-07 18:47 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2008-07-07 19:18 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2008-07-07 21:09 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2008-07-07 21:21 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-07 20:59 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-07-07 17:02 ` Dan Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1215450664.17128.64.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=dcbw@redhat.com \
--cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yi.zhu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).