On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 16:05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> For myself I am happy that someone introduced
> device_shutdown and it has reasonable semantics.
>
> As for halting the system, we currently have two cases:
>
>
> case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT:
> notifier_call_chain(&reboot_notifier_list, SYS_HALT, NULL);
> system_running = 0;
> device_shutdown();
> printk(KERN_EMERG "System halted.\n");
> machine_halt();
> do_exit(0);
> break;
>
> case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_POWER_OFF:
> notifier_call_chain(&reboot_notifier_list, SYS_POWER_OFF, NULL);
> system_running = 0;
> device_shutdown();
> printk(KERN_EMERG "Power down.\n");
> machine_power_off();
> do_exit(0);
> break;
>
i see four occurences in my 2.5.42: LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_RESTART,
LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT, LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_POWER_OFF, and
LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_RESTART2
>
> But for the most part my impression is that we need to get devices
> drivers behaving properly in the 2.5.x And that the basic model
> is o.k. It just needs some pounding on the rough spots.
I agree on this point :)
-
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 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:53 EST