Re: Rfkill on ifconfig up.

["Tomas Winkler" <tomasw@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Tomas Winkler wrote:
>> Little RF KILL design question from user space perspective.
>> What should be desired return value of ifconfig up when HW rfkill is
>> on (radio is off).
>
> This isn't really about rfkill, its design doesn't call for any particular
> behaviour.  IMHO we should go with the principle of least suprise, and also
> more convenience for the user.

No, this is about ifconfig up

> In the end, it will depend on the capabilities of the hardware, I suppose.
> Assuming the hardware CAN bring its interface up without going bonkers
> because the transmitter is not transmitting anything, that's exactly what it
> should do IMO.
>
> What it must never do is to unblock the transmiter because of a ifconfig up
> :-)
>
>> rfkill on (radio off)
>> ifconfig wlan0 up
>> rfkill off (radio on)
>>
>> Will it be ok for these sequence to require additional ifconfig up to
>> make driver to work, providing the first ifconfig up failed?
>
> It would be nice if it didn't fail the first ifconfig, and therefore needed
> nothing special to work other than a rfkill unblock.

Everything is doable just 'would be nice'  is not good reason enough :)
Thanks anyway
Tomas