Re: rfkill: how murderous can it be ?

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1186 bytes --]

On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 11:21 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> But I DO heavily suggest that we inform userspace differently when state was
> lost (i.e. when it absolutely HAS to reconfigure the device or there are no
> chances of data passing through).
> 
> Right now, it HAS that information in a roundabout way: if the device
> disappears (hotunplug), state was lost (duh! :-p)   If it stays around, no
> state was lost...
> 
> And, as an user, I'd be rather annoyed if suddenly I couldn't easily and
> cheaply just hit the rfkill hotkey (softswitch) to kill and unkill my WLAN
> while browsing, and stopping a few minutes to read the screen... because
> every time I unkilled, the system would churn, deassociate and reassociate
> and be otherwise annoying doing a reconfiguration it didn't absolutely have
> to do.
> 
> In other words: make it possible to be configurable!  From the kernel POV
> that just means we need to have to publish to userspace the fact that it has
> to reconfigure when there is not a full hotunplug/hotplug being done.

Way overkill. Anything more than a few seconds of rfkill will require
the "churn" anyway.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]