Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:12:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:12:36 -0400 Received: from cisco7500-mainGW.gts.cz ([194.213.32.131]:6661 "EHLO bug.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:12:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20010420190227.B905@bug.ucw.cz> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:02:27 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: John Fremlin , Alan Cox Cc: sfr@linuxcare.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apenwarr@worldvisions.ca Subject: Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from John Fremlin on Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 08:10:44PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > 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? > > > > Because apmd is optional > > The veto stuff only comes into action, iff someone has registered as > 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? No, this looks reasonable. 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/