Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown | From | John Fremlin <> | Date | 18 Apr 2001 22:34:28 +0100 |
| |
Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@worldvisions.ca> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:10:37PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > willing to exercise this power. We would not break compatibility with > > > any std kernel by instead having a apmd send a "reject all" ioctl > > > instead, and so deal with events without having the pressure of having > > > to reject or accept them, and let us remove all the veto code from the > > > kernel driver. Or am I missing something? > > > > That sounds workable. But the same program could reply to the events just > > as well as issue the ioctl 8) > > AFAICT some APM BIOSes get impatient if you don't acknowledge/reject > the requests fast enough, and start to go bananas. By always > rejecting requests and then making user requests instead at some > time later, we might eliminate this problem (or just cause new > ones).
Indeed. Neither proposal has however received wide testing as far as I know. The userspace ACCEPT/REJECT method was available as a patch from Stephen for a while though.
> Also, I don't think the "critical suspend" message can be rejected > at all, so it would have to be a special case where currently I > don't think it's too bad.
ATM it is a "special case" - we print a message if we try to reject a critical suspend. However the case is not so special that it requires more than a line or two ;-)
I don't think there is any cause for concern on that front.
[...]
--
http://www.penguinpowered.com/~vii - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |