Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:17:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:17:51 -0500 Received: from sushi.toad.net ([162.33.130.105]:935 "EHLO sushi.toad.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:17:27 -0500 Subject: SysRq to abort APM wait? From: Thomas Hood To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release) Date: 09 Dec 2001 18:18:44 -0500 Message-Id: <1007939925.1038.4.camel@thanatos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Today I have a problem with my machine failing to suspend. I'll talk about tracking down that problem in another thread. In this thread I would like to ask whether anyone else thinks it would be useful to have a SysRq key combo that would cause the apm driver to cease waiting for processes to reply to standby|suspend events. What happened to me today (and this is far from the first time) is the following. I request a suspend; apm (the driver) notifies everyone; X processes the event and blanks the screeen; but some bonehead of a process fails to respond to the event and apm just hangs around waiting forever. That leaves me sitting in front of a laptop with a blinking "suspending ..." light and a blanked screen, and X not accepting keypresses. I think it would be useful if under these circumstances I could SysRq-a to force apm to stop waiting for responses to the suspend event and to go ahead and do the suspend. Event queues would be cleared and anyone who hadn't responded to the event would have his write privilege revoked. Good idea, or dumb idea? - 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/