On 10/13/2010 12:14 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:47:07AM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>> On 10/13/2010 12:29 AM, James Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 05:27:27PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>>>> For 0.84 we can do what powerd offers, creating a file based on the pid
>>>> in /var/run/powerd-inhibit-suspend/ (those are removed by powerd when it
>>>> goes into suspend the next time).
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly, these are only removed if the process with
>>> the pid no longer exists. We can rely on /var/run being empty on boot,
>>> since it is a tmpfs.
>>>
>>
>> Right, so in the case of an activity that inhibit suspend because it is
>> shared you have to close the activity in order to get out of that state.
>> There is currently no way to 'un-share' an activity.
>
> That appears to be a Sugar design feature.
>
>> So, in order for powerd to kick in the activity has to be closed and
>> therefore it will remove the file.
>
> powerd will not idle suspend while that file and the matching process is
> present on the system. If either are not present, powerd may idle
> suspend subject to other data.
>
>> Or do I oversee something why we can not rely on my assumption?
>
> I don't understand this question, sorry.
>
> My reply was specifically aimed at your statement that the files "are
> removed by powerd when it goes into suspend the next time".
Ok, my point was that I do not have to unlink the files in Sugar, since
powerd takes care of that. I guess we both have the same understanding
of what powerd does just that we describe it differently. No need to
discuss here further from my side.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
