Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown

From: John Fremlin <chief@bandits.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>,
	"Acpi-PM (E-mail)"
	<linux-power@phobos.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de>,
	"'Pavel Machek'" <pavel@suse.cz>,
	Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@phobos.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de>,
	Andreas Ferber <aferber@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown
Date: 18 Apr 2001 02:56:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2k84jkm1j.fsf@boreas.yi.org.> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E14pgBe-0003gg-00@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: Alan Cox's message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:51:12 +0100 (BST)"

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

[...]

> I would tend to agree here. If you want to wire it to init the fine
> but pm is basically message passing kernel->user and possibly
> message reply to allow veto/approve. APM provides a good API for
> this and there is a definite incentive to make ACPI use the same
> messages, behaviour and extend it.

I'm wondering if that veto business is really needed. Why not reject
*all* APM rejectable events, and then let the userspace event handler
send the system to sleep or turn it off? Anybody au fait with the APM
spec?

This would have the advantage that the veto stuff could be ripped out
and things made simpler.

-- 

	http://www.penguinpowered.com/~vii