From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:37319 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752644AbZEaVTj (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 May 2009 17:19:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: create useful userspace interface From: Dan Williams To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: Johannes Berg , alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, John Linville , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <1243796628.6570.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1243524688.10632.0.camel@johannes.local> <9b2b86520905310651g41babab2hb05729b0699dd81f@mail.gmail.com> <1243778069.5299.0.camel@johannes.local> <1243796628.6570.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:19:04 -0400 Message-Id: <1243804744.4714.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 21:03 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > > > How should userspace test CONFIG_RFKILL_INPUT to determine whether > > > it's safe to start the daemon? With the old core, debian-eeepc > > > scripts check if the module rfkill-input exists (which should work > > > even if it's built in). If it exists, the scripts don't perform any > > > rfkill actions. (Yeah, according to the doc this is not allowed > > > because the scripts don't use "claim", but you can see how it's > > > useful). > > > > > > The new rfkill-input isn't a module, so I'm not sure how your daemon > > > would test for it. > > > > Maybe we should add an ioctl that disables rfkill-input if present. > > I am against it. Can we just add a module parameter that allows us to > disable it. I am against cluttering a new interface with legacy stuff > since we are removing rfkill-input and replacing it by rfkilld anyway in > a near future (meaning when I am back from vacation). Module parameter to what? Module parameters are almost always the wrong thing to do. Or, just don't built rfkill_input it into your kernel Dan