--On Wednesday, August 19, 2009 14:43:36 -0500 Dan Williams
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 20:21 +0100, Rick Jones wrote:
>
> It seems to me this would be a good opportunity to handle WOL
> properly. I've never been able to get WOL to work, and messing around
> with ethtool shouldn't be necessary anyway. It seems to be something
> that just isn't easy on Linux. If NM were to take control of
> suspending the network devices then it should be easy for it to set up
> the conditions for WOL to work.
>
> Another good reason to press ahead with this?
I wouldn't expect WOL to work at the driver/hardware level before 2.6.32
anyway given that there's only recently been a lot of work on it
upstream. I'm not sure of the specifics though, since it seems like
we'd need some sort of communication between the card/driver and
userspace to alert NM or the supplicant to *why* the machine was woken
up, and potentially what to do in response to that.
Dan
I wouldn't have thought reacting to a WOL wakeup would need to be any
different from the normal power-button wakeup. The problem at the moment is
that it doesn't seem possble to suspend the machine in such a way that it
will wakeup at all in response to network activity - either magic packets
or other. Is this what the 2.6.32 work is intended to solve?
Rick
_______________________________________________
NetworkManager-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
