Re: [pm] fix time after suspend-to-*

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>,
	Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org>,
	George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
	John stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [pm] fix time after suspend-to-*
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:26:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031028172618.GA2307@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200310281521.h9SFLQxF024354@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>

Hi!

> > Not sure... We do not want applications to know. Certainly we can't
> > send a signal; SIGPWR already has some meaning and it would be bad to
> > override it.
> 
> You are correct that SIGPWR already has an assigned semantic.
> 
> However, I'm not convinced that we don't want applications to know.
> Others have mentioned timeouts of network connections, and there's other
> issues as well - for instance, on my laptop, it is almost guaranteed (due to my
> work habits) that if I were to suspend it, when it wakes up the network
> configuration would be *wrong*.  It's possible to intuit what the right
> config is by looking at the number of ethernets and their link state, but
> that requires a wakeup of *something* in userspace - blindly going on
> as if nothing happened simply won't work.
> 
> Would having a pair of 'sleep/wakeup' calls in /etc/inittab (similar to the
> powerfail/powerok pair) be a solution here?  

Patrick has a patch to send event down using "hotplug" system.

									Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]