In firmware 4.08, the $NWQMISTATUS command returns different values for
QMI state to indicate the current connection state. This patch modifies
the code to handle $NWQMISTATUS responses in firmware 1.41 and 4.08.
---
plugins/novatel/mm-broadband-bearer-novatel-lte.c | 24 +++-
1
The $NWQMISTATUS command sometimes replies an ERROR shortly after
calling the $NWQMICONNECT command, but then replies the proper QMI
status if we retry it. This behavior is observed on an E362 modem with
4.08 firmware.
(ttyUSB0): --> 'AT$NWQMICONNECT=,,"",,,"",""'
(ttyUSB0): <-- 'OK'
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 05:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> In my opinion, you should have just one binary. It is easy to detect systemd
> at runtime, as it requires cgroups and creates one.
There is sd_booted() as public API for that. For what NetworkManager is
doing, runtime detection may indeed
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 15:02 -0400, Luke T.Shumaker wrote:
> I propose that the build system should generage both
> `NetworkManager-ck' and `NetworkManager-systemd' binaries and symlink
> `NetworkManager' to one of them.
>
> This way a distro that supports both sysvinit and systemd (such as
> Arch)
At Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:19:57 -0400 (EDT),
Pavel Simerda wrote:
> In my opinion, you should have just one binary. It is easy to detect systemd
> at runtime, as it requires cgroups and creates one. Symlink management is
> an overkill here. CK should be likewise very easy to detect. In absence of
> bo
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:28 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> I don't consider this an experiment at this point.
Well, I do think Pavel has a point; it's true that NetworkManager is
an order of magnitude more code than any other project I've used it in
before, and it's larger in terms of people too.
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> I'm not yet even convinced about this because of total lack of documentation
> to be
> found right away.
What do you think about this patch? Does it help address your concerns?
Is there anything that could be clearer?
>From a6f48a9720
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:56 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:51 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> > I don't oppose that.
>
> Attached.
Well, *if* we did that, we'd just "git revert " instead of applying
a patch to do it.
Dan
___
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > From: "Colin Walters"
> > Hi,
>
> Hi, thanks for a quick reply.
>
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
> >
> > has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion
> > to this, because it's a very impor
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:51 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> I don't oppose that.
Attached.
>From c43e095419423b36544e221f9f0896d2579fb0a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Walters
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:53:05 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "core: import libgsystem, use it for
local-allocat
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:19 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
>
> has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion to
> this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
>
> First, one thing that came up is a con
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> Then why it wasn't good enough for Glib but is good enough for
> NetworkManager? Why
See this thread:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2012-April/msg3.html
Basically, because the GTK+ stack needs to compile with MSVC.
U
> From: "Colin Walters"
> Hi,
Hi, thanks for a quick reply.
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
>
> has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion
> to this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
>
> First, one thing that came up is a conce
Hi,
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion to
this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
First, one thing that came up is a concern about a GCC hard dependency.
My understanding is that LLVM implemen
In my opinion, you should have just one binary. It is easy to detect systemd
at runtime, as it requires cgroups and creates one. Symlink management is
an overkill here. CK should be likewise very easy to detect. In absence of
both, NetworkManager should still work.
Pavel
- Original Message --
15 matches
Mail list logo