Re: [PATCH 2/3] iwlwifi: remove STATUS_ALIVE checking from rf_kill

[Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>]

Am Donnerstag, 26. M=C3=A4rz 2009 schrieb reinette chatre:
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 12:11 -0700, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 26. M=C3=A4rz 2009 schrieb reinette chatre:
> > > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 10:50 -0700, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >=20
> > > > Am Donnerstag, 26. M=C3=A4rz 2009 schrieb Reinette Chatre:
> > > > > From: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Remove STATUS_ALIVE checking when HW RF KILL disabled, the bi=
t get
> > > > > clear in __iwl_down() function; the additional checking will =
fail and
> > > > > cause RF can not be turn back on.
> > > >=20
> > > > Are you sure this is needed? I'd argue we should only restart t=
he adapter
> > > > if it was alive when it got rf_killed. In case the adapter was =
rf_killed
> > > > while the interface was down I don't think we want to restart t=
he adapter
> > > > immediately but first when the interface is taken up again.
> > >=20
> > > We also need to consider if a suspend/resume happens in the middl=
e.
> > > Without the patch, if you enable rfkill, suspend, resume, disable
> > > rfkill, then your interface cannot be brought up.
> >=20
> > I guess you refer to the situation where the interface is up, right=
?
> > Something like:
> >=20
> > - ifconfig wlan0 up
> > - press killswitch (kill wireless)
> > - suspend
> > - resume
> > - press killswitch (enable wireless)
> > - here the interface should still be up
> >=20
> > As the interface is/was up, mac80211's resume handler should restar=
t the
> > adapter and thus we wouldn't need to restart the adapter in the
> > rfkill-handler, or did I miss anything?
>=20
> Yes, the resume handler will start the adapter (call "start"), but th=
e
> actions done by it will exit early because of rfkill being enabled. T=
he
> STATUS_ALIVE bit will thus not be set after this is completed. Later,
> when user disables rfkill, we want to restart the adapter to get all
> this corrected, but this call currently fails because of this check.

Got it, thanks for the explanation.

Nevertheless, removing the check will result in restarting the adapter =
even
if the interface is down. So, I agree that we have a problem here but I=
 do
not agree with the solution ;)

Maybe taking the interface up (not only pseudo-up, as done currently) s=
hould
be allowed even if wireless is killed? We already allow the interface t=
o
stay up when the adapter gets rfkilled.

Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireles=
s" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html