[PATCH 0/3] WOL: Add Wake On LAN support

[David Zeuthen]

On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 11:31 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Thu 30. Aug - 11:49:24, Holger Macht wrote:
> > On Tue 28. Aug - 21:47:12, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 14:12 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 16:54 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > > > Adding the GetSupported(void) method to the coldplug detection of HAL
> > > > > might make sense, though. I already have code, partly copied from ethtool,
> > > > > to detect this from inside C code. It just makes it more complicated IMO
> > > > > even though I'm an advocator of binary versus script code. However, I'll
> > > > > check this again.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually I think it's nicer to just have a GetSupported() method instead
> > > > of a property. At least badly written drivers won't crap out until it's
> > > > called which is preferable to having the system lock up at boot time.
> > > > Which is what happened back when hal was trying to detect whether a
> > > > cable was plugged in.
> > > 
> > > Do we actually want to care about drivers like that? They'll get fixed,
> > > and people will downgrade their HAL in the meanwhile. Given that the
> > > property never changes, it doesn't make much sense to check with
> > > GetSupported() all the time. HAL checks once, all the apps know it can
> > > handle it...
> > 
> > Actually after having done the work already, I also think a property is
> > more clean ;-) I also don't think the code would be too risky to break
> > drivers. Drivers which don't have ethtool support are unlikely to break,
> > drivers which do should be fixed in any case to make use of its
> > functionality.
> 
> Ok, so where to go from here? David, shall I decide for myself what to do?
> ;-) Going the secure or the clean/right way? Property or method? ;-)

I'd like to do this with methods - just seems like less work the OS
needs to do... Thanks.

      David