From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bu3sch.de ([62.75.166.246]:56036 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755374AbYIRR5Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:57:25 -0400 From: Michael Buesch To: Ivo van Doorn Subject: Re: [RFC] b43: A patch for control of the radio LED using rfkill Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:56:59 +0200 Cc: Larry Finger , John W Linville , bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <48d1e227.AmBwRnEuhx6kxlHv%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <200809181937.38257.mb@bu3sch.de> <200809181948.27507.IvDoorn@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200809181948.27507.IvDoorn@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200809181957.00151.mb@bu3sch.de> (sfid-20080918_195728_626378_A85FE3E9) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 18 September 2008 19:48:27 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > Well no actually, when the radio state (software rfkill state in your words) No, "radio state" is _not_ "software rfkill state" in my words. It's an independent state. The actual physical radio state is a combined state of the two sw and hw state bits. If either bit blocks the radio, it's physically blocked. We cannot toggle the hw bit from software. > it shouldn't be send to rfkill at all. rfkill should only be informed about the hardware > rfkill state changes. So that's fine. We just revert the patch that caused all the trouble and we will gain _exactly_ that. > > Do not change any software state from within the hardware state change handler. > > This will blow up. > > When you use userspace tools this won't happen since the hardware state change handler > will send an uevent to userspace which might act upon that, and will eventually send an > instruction back to the hardware, but that goes through a different thread. It will semantically blow up. See the initial mail from Larry with the regression report. -- Greetings Michael.