Re: [GIT PATCH] rfkill fixes for 2.6.28-rc3

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 06:20:40PM +0100, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> On Monday 03 November 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Nov 2008, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 November 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > This small patchset contains two fixes to issues in the suspend/resume
> > > > handling of the rfkill class core.
> > > > 
> > > > It needs to go to 2.6.28.  These patches are based on 2.6.28-rc3.
> > > 
> > > Are they real regressions or normal bugfixes?
> > 
> > I am not sure if they regress anything, but I am pretty sure there is no
> > bugzilla entry about them yet.  I have added two more interested parties to
> > the CC.
> > 
> > So, if there is a strong feeling this would best be held until the next
> > merge window, I can certainly respin the patches to on top of
> > wireless-testing...
> 
> Well I'll give my ACK to the 2 patches, but I'll let john decide if they
> are "regression" enough for 2.6.28. ;)

So I keep looking at these patches, and I'm not sure about them.
It seems that they restore the rfkill state after resume to what it
was before the suspend.  What I am unsure about is whether or not
that is the appropriate thing to do.  I suppose it makes sense under
the rule of least surprise.

I guess the safer alternative would be to always resume with rfkill
enabled, but that is probably undesirable in the most common case.
So, I have no objection to these patches.

Still, I don't see how they qualify for 2.6.28.  How serious do you
think this potential problem really is?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Linux should be at the core
linville@tuxdriver.com			of your literate lifestyle.