Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:21:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:21:37 -0400 Received: from m311-mp1-cvx1a.col.ntl.com ([213.104.69.55]:42368 "EHLO [213.104.69.55]") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:21:24 -0400 To: Alan Cox Subject: Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown Cc: , , In-Reply-To: From: John Fremlin Date: 18 Apr 2001 21:21:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: Alan Cox's message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:10:37 +0100 (BST)" Message-ID: Lines: 22 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: > > 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) Having more than one program holding the veto on each event is a bit of a hassle. Keeping track of "replies" is also a bit of a hassle. It'd be simpler to let userspace handle everything in line with e.g. the ACPI power button press, and suspend or turn off the machine in the normal manner. [...] -- 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/