From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: Wake On Lan device semantics Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:11:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20061103161121.7533b32c@freekitty> References: <20061103152025.5d27bd8d@freekitty> <454BD5FD.2030502@pobox.com> <20061103.160230.71088561.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:49636 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932502AbWKDARA (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 19:17:00 -0500 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20061103.160230.71088561.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:02:30 -0800 (PST) David Miller wrote: > From: Jeff Garzik > Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:51:25 -0500 > > > The purpose of WOL is being able to turn on a system remotely, if it is > > in a power-off or sleep state. > > > > So, if the system is -on- and the interface is down and/or driver is > > unloaded, are you saying WOL is a problem somehow? > > Stephen is saying that if you down an interface, it should disable > that WoL functionality. > > I guess you can argue that, like IP addresses, this WoL thing is an > attribute of the "system". Looking harder. The semantic needs to be WOL is okay if driver is loaded and device is up or down. But the default for WOL should be disabled until enabled by ethtool (or parameter). -- Stephen Hemminger