Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1335509
| From | João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/9] rfkill: Userspace control for airplane mode |
| Date | 2016-02-16 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r2PzY-18K-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <qZWeC-7eV-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qZWHF-7Fq-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0Fv4-4sd-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0Ght-4Nm-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0GAP-5dx-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 10 February 2016 at 12:12, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > On 2016-02-10 17:53, Dan Williams wrote: >> >> Yeah, I get that now. It's just that to me, something called >> "AIRPLANE_MODE_CHANGE" seems like it should actually change airplane >> mode on/off, which implies killing radios. I wouldn't have had the >> problem if it was named AIRPLANE_MODE_INDICATOR_CHANGE, which makes it >> clear this is simply an indicator and has no actual effect on anything >> other than a LED. > I also agree the AIRPLANE_MODE_INDICATOR_* prefix makes things more clear here. Thanks for the feedback, Dan! > > Yeah, I agree. I'm not even sure that it's a good idea to subsume this into > the regular operations in the API, although that's obviously the easiest > extension. I'll need to think about that a bit more with the code at hand > though. > Initially I have thought about creating and additional RFKill switch for that, but I think it would be a bit hackish since we would have to treat it specially in sysfs attributes and probably other places, and userspace would also need a special case when going through the list of RFKill switches in the system. The proposed solution has equivalent semantics to an RFKill switch, is backward-compatible (users would only ignore the unknown operations and evens -- although gsd has a "default:" case to abort execution on an unknown event) and does not extend the RFKill event struct. One alternative would be to move the control point to a separate device, like /dev/rfkill-airplane-mode, but I'm not sure this is a very elegant approach. Anyway, I'm open to work on changes to the API, but it would be great if you could at least pick or reject the non-polemical patches of the series, so I don't need to carry them anymore. -- João Paulo Rechi Vita http://about.me/jprvita
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 8/9] rfkill: Userspace control for airplane mode Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-02-10 17:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 8/9] rfkill: Userspace control for airplane mode Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com> - 2016-02-10 18:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 8/9] rfkill: Userspace control for airplane mode Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-02-10 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 8/9] rfkill: Userspace control for airplane mode João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:20 +0100
csiph-web