Hi, Randy, I'm not voting(don't think I can), just try to understand the project better.
Randy Fishel wrote: >I would like to propose the following project to be sponsored by the >Power Management Community Group: > > Power Management Usability Interfaces > >Controlling and managing Power Management facilities currently is a >small collection of diverse tools that often manipulate objects >directly, or even require that a user edit a configuration file. And >many don't allow the user to identify or understand in-kernel values >without entering a debugger. As some tools need to duplicate >pathways, maintenance becomes a problem as all the tools need to be >identified and updated. > >Providing a well defined set of interfaces help to aleviate confusion, >and promote easy to use and easy to create tools. Maintenence and >security are also often confined to the element that exhibits the >problem. Some of this work may just result in improved documentation, >but there will also be a need for new and updated tools and >interfaces. > >I see this work falling into four distinct areas: > > A Power Management specific library (i.e. libpower) > Provides a committed set of programatic API's that > can be consumed by other tools, utilities, daemons, and GUI's > > What set of existing & new functionality that you have in mind to be provided by the APIs? powerd and part of pmconfig, I suppose? > Commands and Utilities > Predominantly updated and new CLI's, but could also be GUI's > that are expected to directly be us > > SMF facilities > New and improved services that can act standalone, or be > used as a repository for running state. > > Are you referring to the SMF notion of repository for running state? if yes, how do you imagine how user might exploit that? "power" is already an SMF system service, are you proposing an alternative or modification to the service? If the latter, what specifically you'd like to change? Laslyt, how may virtualized platforms exploit the service differently than it does now? > Debug/Observability > Some of this might land in CLI, but could well include mdb > and dtrace enhancements (i.e. dtrace pm provider). > > > Do you plan to tie up the "Observability" functionality to the "powertop" ported to Solaris by way of expanding it perhaps? thanks, -jane >Initially I expect this work to focus in libpower, but there is the >likelyhood of effort in the other areas, as well as short-term binary >relief. This project will not necessarily limit itself to the above >areas, and could easily expand as the need presents itself. > > > > Comments? Votes? > > > Cheers! > > > ---- Randy > > > >_______________________________________________ >pm-discuss mailing list >pm-discuss at opensolaris.org >http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-discuss > >
