From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from senator.holtmann.net ([87.106.208.187]:57551 "EHLO mail.holtmann.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752119AbZEaTCL (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 May 2009 15:02:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: create useful userspace interface From: Marcel Holtmann To: Johannes Berg Cc: alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, John Linville , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <1243763887.19302.29.camel@johannes.local> References: <1243524688.10632.0.camel@johannes.local> <9b2b86520905310213n7be56260lc0c2cf3c109fe065@mail.gmail.com> <1243763887.19302.29.camel@johannes.local> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:01:49 +0200 Message-Id: <1243796509.6570.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Johannes, > > If I read correctly, userspace can write to the global states, but > > can't read them? I think it's awkward to implement rfkill-input in > > userspace without being able to read the global states. The daemon > > would have to save the states in a file, in case it is restarted. > > You have a point there, but I'm not sure it even cares? When restarted > it will probably want to impose its current policy anyway? It would be > easy to add that we send the global default value for newly added ones > too but I'm not sure it's necessary -- Marcel? we can be smart and send an additional CHANGE_ALL when opening the control device if it is set. We can also just send these anyway. Doesn't really matter? Does it? Regards Marcel