Andy Green wrote: > I am surprised given what you've said in the past :-)
Well, so far there's no plan to send that beast upstream anyway, so we could rewrite it in C++ with CamelCase and pHungarian notation and the impact of such folly would still be quite limited :-) > With rfkill we can retire the sysfs one entirely One of my concerns is that it would suggest that there's a real rfkill underneath while there isn't. So it's a policy decision in the end - is this good enough that we can call it "rfkill" or do we leave this decision to user space. After pondering this issue for a bit today, I'd consider it good enough. But a lot more thought than that went into the design of the rfkill interface and its semantics, which is why I asked on linux-wireless. The other concern is that people will mistake rfkill for power saving. There's only so much we can do to prevent this, but we can at least be clear in what we advertize. - Werner
