On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 01:50 +0100, Graham Lyon wrote: > > > 2009/8/7 Dan Williams <d...@redhat.com> > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:30 +0100, Marc Herbert wrote: > > Dan Williams a écrit : > > > > > > There are two reasons I've not yet added pre-up and > pre-down. They are: > > > > > > 2) appropriateness > > > > Hmmm, the good old "just do not do this" answer... the best > answer to > > any feature request ever ;-) Especially to people having > using this > > feature for ages and being suddendly deprived of it. > > > Please note I didn't say *all* uses were inappropriate. Just > that > because we've done something the same way forever, doesn't > *necessarily* > mean that it should always be done that way until the end of > time. > > > > > > b) by the time any pre-down script will run, often the > connection > > > has already gone away (the AP is out of range, the cable > has been > > > unplugged already, etc) so any operation a pre-down script > does *cannot* > > > depend on the interface being up; it must gracefully > fail. Common > > > things people wanted to do here were unmount network > shares; > > > but since the script must always handle unexpected > disconnects (which > > > not all network file systems do well), you might as well > just run this > > > from post-down anyway. > > > > I think "pre-down" cleanup scripts could (should?) simply > NOT be run on > > unexpected disconnects (as opposed to explicit disconnection > > requests). Simply because they are called PRE-down, not > AT-down. > > > I did think about this a lot while composing the mail, and > couldn't come > up with a good reason to not run pre-down scripts on > unexpected > disconnect. I don't really care either way. > > Not running them on unexpected disconnects would breed inconsistency > and would be confusing for tracking issues/users who aren't aware of > this quirk. Running them on unexpected disconnections would be > pointless - they are scripts that, by definition, expect the interface > to be up. There's no winning. > > Perhaps when a connection drops unexpectedly the pre-down scripts > should be run with an argument of some kind to inform them that the > interface has already dropped? That way they can clean up the mess > that's created but avoid any action that requires the interface to > still be up...
That was my thinking too, and probably the right thing to do. Dan > Just two my cents > > -Graham > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkManager-list mailing list > NetworkManager-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list