2008/3/16, Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 18:31 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > 2008/3/16, Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 18:16 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 23:43 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > > > 2008/3/15, Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > More bugs: > > > > > Running pm-is-supported as not root: > > > > > > > > > > # pm-is-supported --suspend && echo yes > > > > > mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/run/pm-utils/storage': > Permission denied > > > > > yes > > > > > # pm-is-supported --help > > > > > mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/run/pm-utils/storage': > Permission denied > > > > > pm-is-supported [--suspend | --hibernate | --suspend-hybrid ] > > > > > > > > Fixing that the right way will be slightly tricker. I will postpone > > > > looking at this until tomorrow -- I have a party to get ready for. > > > > > > > > > Fix comitted and pushed upstream. Now we only try to parse blacklist > > > entries and load default parameters after we have taken the suspend > > > lock. > > > > Hm, seems I missed to review your vlowther-dynamic-hook-disable changes. > > Honestly, I'm a bit sceptical about adding this new /etc/pm/parameters > > and /etc/pm/blacklists interface. > > > > We already have a (documented) mechanism for users to disable a hook > > (which is, to create a non-executable file in /etc/pm/sleep.d/. Why do > > we need another mechanism? > > > The hook-disabling mechanism is not primarily for users -- it is for > modules and other hooks. I added the blacklist-parsing code because it > is a bit more intuitive than masking out a system hook by creating a > nonexecutable file.
Still, we have two ways now to do exactly the same, which is not good imho. > > > Second, do we really need to pass parameters to hooks? I haven't > > needed it so far. Imho we should only add functionality which is > > actually used. > > > I use it. If I don't pass --quirk-none (or mask 99video out using a > blacklist entry or a nonexecutable hook), then the paramaters hal passes > to pm-suspend will hardlock my system on reboot everytime when it tries > to POST the card. HAL currently does not take the video card and video > driver into account when deciding which quirks to pass to pm-suspend, > and until it does I will need this sort of functionality. We already have /etc/pm/config.d. Why don't we utilise it for that purpose: Let's define a new variable PARAMS (better name welcome) which get's appended to PM_CMDLINE. That way you can drop a config file into /etc/pm/conf.d/myopts. We could do the same for the blacklisted hooks. We simply define (and document) a variable DISABLED_HOOKS, which can be set via /etc/pm/config.d I don't think we need special code for these two cases. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
