From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Wake On Lan device semantics Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:42:49 -0500 Message-ID: <454BE209.4020407@pobox.com> References: <20061103152025.5d27bd8d@freekitty> <454BD5FD.2030502@pobox.com> <20061103.160230.71088561.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:52637 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932524AbWKDAnC (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 19:43:02 -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 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. Many distros down the interface on poweroff, a state from which WOL is often used, so we don't want this. > I guess you can argue that, like IP addresses, this WoL thing is an > attribute of the "system". Yeah, it's definitely a system state. When the magic packet arrives, the WOL wire on the motherboard is tickled, turning the machine on. Jeff