On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 12:43 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 01:50 +0100, Graham Lyon wrote: > > 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. Isn't that basically the same as a post-down script then? Even with such a flag, running the pre-down scripts after the connection has already gone down seems wrong... Seems to me that the way to handle pre-down scripts is with the very clear statement that they're run only on a manual disconnection, that being the only circumstance where NM (or any other hypothetical system) knows the connection is about to be dropped... Simon.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part