On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:57 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 15:41 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:58AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > Trivial patch attached to fix behaviour of dbus-send. Description and > > > solution in patch. Please review. > > > > I think the --print-reply was removed, since it would slow down suspending > > considerably.
A single method to NetworkManager that's a NOP? > > Couldn't we - at least for the suspend case - just put the dbus-send > > into the background? NM should be set to offline by g-p-m or kpowersave > > already anyway before pm-utils come into play, shouldn't it? > > g-p-m appears to have done so for the last 3 years. Sure, but doing the second "down" after the first is super quick, and works in the case of computers without g-p-m or kpowersave. > Does network manager have a d-bus method that we can use to query its > current state? If so, might be better to see if network manager is > already asleep, and do nothing on suspend/resume if that is the case. IIRC, that's what the method already does, if already down then exit straight back. > Also, email referenced in the patch was from last March -- has d-bus > been fixed since then? No. It required lots of changes, and havoc didn't see it as a priority. I guess the real question is that maybe we should just fix the kernel drivers rather than poke NM. I'll talk to Dan W. Richard. _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
