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
