On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> > From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@suse.cz]
> > 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.
> I would think that it would make sense to keep shutdown with all the other
> power management events. Perhaps it will makes more sense to handle UPS's
> through the power management code.
I've already started to like the idea, since init is the tool that runs
all the time, not any ACPI or PM daemon, and it seems good to me that the
kernel always knows what to do on an event (signal init and think that it
has been dealt with).
init should provide a "direct" interface that doesn't rely on scripts
being present in certain directories (one less thing that can be broken)
for programs that want to receive these events. From the application
programmer's view this doesn't even make a difference if you have a shlib.
Maybe we should copy the init people? :-)
Simon
-- GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Simon.Richter.asc Fingerprint: DC26 EB8D 1F35 4F44 2934 7583 DBB6 F98D 9198 3292 Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:21 EST