Commit 171554d0 authored by Thomas Haller's avatar Thomas Haller

device: clearify behavior of NM_UNMANAGED_USER_SETTINGS in comment

parent 93e1e654
......@@ -9522,7 +9522,7 @@ _get_managed_by_flags(NMUnmanagedFlags flags, NMUnmanagedFlags mask, gboolean fo
* Some flags are authoritative, meaning they always cause
* the device to be unmanaged (e.g. @NM_UNMANAGED_PLATFORM_INIT).
* OTOH, some flags can be overwritten. For example NM_UNMANAGED_USER_SETTINGS
* OTOH, some flags can be overwritten. For example NM_UNMANAGED_USER_UDEV
* is ignored once NM_UNMANAGED_USER_EXPLICIT is set. The idea is that
* the flag from the configuration has no effect once the user explicitly
* touches the unmanaged flags. */
......@@ -439,7 +439,10 @@ RfKillType nm_device_get_rfkill_type (NMDevice *device);
* (e.g. via a D-Bus command)
* @NM_UNMANAGED_USER_SETTINGS: %TRUE when unmanaged by user decision via
* the settings plugin (for example keyfile.unmanaged-devices or ifcfg-rh's
* NM_CONTROLLED=no). Although this is user-configuration (provided from
* the settings plugins, such as NM_CONTROLLED=no in ifcfg-rh), it cannot
* be overruled and is authorative. That is because users may depend on
* dropping a ifcfg-rh file to ensure the device is unmanaged.
* @NM_UNMANAGED_BY_DEFAULT: %TRUE for certain device types where we unmanage
* them by default
* @NM_UNMANAGED_USER_UDEV: %TRUE when unmanaged by user decision (via UDev rule)
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment