Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:57:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:57:29 -0400 Received: from m69-mp1-cvx1b.col.ntl.com ([213.104.72.69]:30368 "EHLO [213.104.72.69]") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:57:09 -0400 To: Alan Cox Cc: "Grover, Andrew" , "Acpi-PM (E-mail)" , "'Pavel Machek'" , Simon Richter , Andreas Ferber , Subject: Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown In-Reply-To: From: John Fremlin Date: 18 Apr 2001 02:56:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: Alan Cox's message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:51:12 +0100 (BST)" Message-ID: Lines: 21 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (GTK) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox writes: [...] > I would tend to agree here. If you want to wire it to init the fine > but pm is basically message passing kernel->user and possibly > message reply to allow veto/approve. APM provides a good API for > this and there is a definite incentive to make ACPI use the same > messages, behaviour and extend it. I'm wondering if that veto business is really needed. Why not reject *all* APM rejectable events, and then let the userspace event handler send the system to sleep or turn it off? Anybody au fait with the APM spec? This would have the advantage that the veto stuff could be ripped out and things made simpler. -- 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/