Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:02:30 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:36:45 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system i

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:36:45 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 > > Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >>> It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system > >>> i

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system if it is down. before suspend existed this was the only useful case for WoL. Why does it not seem a

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system if it is down. before suspend existed this was the only useful case for WoL. Why does it not seem a

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread David Miller
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:42:49 -0500 > David Miller wrote: > > 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

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Jeff Garzik
David Miller wrote: From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:02:30 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 sy

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread David Miller
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 pro

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Jeff Garzik
Stephen Hemminger wrote: I am working on getting WOL to work on sky2 (and then skge). But in the process I noticed that the semantics of WOL seems to be device dependent. I assume that WOL should work when device is suspended. But some drivers also support WOL when the device is down (or even r

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system > > if it is down. > > before suspend existed this was the only useful case for WoL. Why does it not > seem a > good ide

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0800 Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system > > if it is down. > > before suspend existed this was the only useful case for WoL. Why does it not > seem a > good ide

Re: Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Auke Kok
Stephen Hemminger wrote: It doesn't seem like a good idea for a network device to wake the system if it is down. before suspend existed this was the only useful case for WoL. Why does it not seem a good idea to wake up a machine that was shutdown (and thus the interface `downed`) ? Auke - To

Wake On Lan device semantics

2006-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
I am working on getting WOL to work on sky2 (and then skge). But in the process I noticed that the semantics of WOL seems to be device dependent. I assume that WOL should work when device is suspended. But some drivers also support WOL when the device is down (or even removed). Now I know some d