Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:31:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:31:40 -0400 Received: from cisco7500-mainGW.gts.cz ([194.213.32.131]:9732 "EHLO bug.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:31:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20010416232748.A385@bug.ucw.cz> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:27:48 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Simon Richter , Andreas Ferber Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown In-Reply-To: <20010416174945.D29398@kallisto.sind-doof.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from Simon Richter on Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:25:38PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > A power failure is a different thing from a power button press. > > > And why not do exactly this with init? Have a look in /etc/inittab: > > > You can shut down your machine there, but you can also have it play a > > cancan on power failure. It is up to your gusto. And now tell me, why > > not choose a similar approach, but instead reinvent the wheel and > > create a completely new mechanism? > > Because we'd be running out of signals soon, when all the other ACPI > events get available. There are 32 signals, and signals can carry more information, if required. I really think doing it way UPS-es are done is right approach. Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - 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/