Re: Proposal: Hotkey-handling with kerneld

Martin Buck (Martin-2.Buck@student.uni-ulm.de)
Wed, 24 Apr 96 19:08 MET DST

> >Implementing a much more general interface than the current Spawn_Console
> >could be done very easily: The only changes required in the kernel would be
> >a few extra keysyms and a handler for them that calls request_module()
>
> What's wrong with teh Spawn_Console method?
> It seems fairly clean & direct to me.
> What if I want to bind some hot keys, but don't want to run kerneld?

How do you want to distinguish between different hotkeys? The current
implementation allows you to send ONE signal to ONE process. Even if we
would change this to allow all possible signals to be sent to a process,
this still seems to be a bit limited (though *I* probably won't need up to
30 hotkeys).

Also, nobody forces you to use kerneld for anything else than
hotkey-handling. If you don't want dynamic loading of modules, don't use it.

Martin

--
/* Martin Buck                      E-Mail: martin-2.buck@student.uni-ulm.de */
/* Student of electrical engineering   WWW: http://www.uni-ulm.de/~s_mbuck1/ */
/* University of Ulm, Germany  Snail-Mail: Paukengasse 2, 89077 Ulm, Germany */
#include <disclaimer.h>            /* PGP Key available    MIME-Mail welcome */