Re: Power button policy and mechanism
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:54:27 +0100 Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 10:34 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. > > > It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus > > > branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). > > There was a long discussion thread about this a while back. There were a > lot of differing views but in the end no patch to fix up power.c to do > anything was accepted. The Zaurus was the reason I raised the issue. > > It seems power.c was recently removed as it was dead code. > > > > So in short: > > > 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel > > > (power button == suspend/resume)? > > >Why/Why Not? > > > > Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or > > delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something > > else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual > > handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done > > directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with > > power management too tightly. > > > > However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an > > input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your > > keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. > > The proposed changes to power.c were to hook it into things like APM as > a "user" event so the power button triggered a suspend event but > anything in userspace needing to know about (or veto) it could do so. > > > > 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would > > > appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. > > > > Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. > > Currently I still patch this functionality into the Zaurus kernels > (basically by resurrecting power.c with the patches I used to apply to > it added in): > Aha, good for reference code. > http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/patches/input_power-r9.patch > > This works for 2.6.23 but doesn't seem to work in 2.6.23-git9. I've not > looked into why yet. > > In the current climate, this will never make mainline kernels so I will > be considering other options such as adding support into something like > OHM. As yet, I've not found the time to do that and since the above > patch works and is relatively easy to maintain... I don't know exactly what OHM is but anything that would get this functionality (which is vital for handhelds) would be great. Big thanks for reply > > Cheers, > > Richard > > -- Kristoffer Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:54:27 +0100 Richard Purdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 10:34 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). There was a long discussion thread about this a while back. There were a lot of differing views but in the end no patch to fix up power.c to do anything was accepted. The Zaurus was the reason I raised the issue. It seems power.c was recently removed as it was dead code. So in short: 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power button == suspend/resume)? Why/Why Not? Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with power management too tightly. However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. The proposed changes to power.c were to hook it into things like APM as a user event so the power button triggered a suspend event but anything in userspace needing to know about (or veto) it could do so. 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. Currently I still patch this functionality into the Zaurus kernels (basically by resurrecting power.c with the patches I used to apply to it added in): Aha, good for reference code. http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/patches/input_power-r9.patch This works for 2.6.23 but doesn't seem to work in 2.6.23-git9. I've not looked into why yet. In the current climate, this will never make mainline kernels so I will be considering other options such as adding support into something like OHM. As yet, I've not found the time to do that and since the above patch works and is relatively easy to maintain... I don't know exactly what OHM is but anything that would get this functionality (which is vital for handhelds) would be great. Big thanks for reply Cheers, Richard -- Kristoffer Ericson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
Hi Richard, On Friday 19 October 2007, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 10:34 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. > > > It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus > > > branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). > > There was a long discussion thread about this a while back. There were a > lot of differing views but in the end no patch to fix up power.c to do > anything was accepted. The Zaurus was the reason I raised the issue. > > It seems power.c was recently removed as it was dead code. That's because nothing in mainline was using it. > > > > So in short: > > > 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel > > > (power button == suspend/resume)? > > >Why/Why Not? > > > > Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or > > delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something > > else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual > > handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done > > directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with > > power management too tightly. > > > > However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an > > input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your > > keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. > > The proposed changes to power.c were to hook it into things like APM as > a "user" event so the power button triggered a suspend event but > anything in userspace needing to know about (or veto) it could do so. > > > > 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would > > > appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. > > > > Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. > > Currently I still patch this functionality into the Zaurus kernels > (basically by resurrecting power.c with the patches I used to apply to > it added in): > > http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/patches/input_power-r9.patch > > This works for 2.6.23 but doesn't seem to work in 2.6.23-git9. I've not > looked into why yet. > > In the current climate, this will never make mainline kernels so I will > be considering other options such as adding support into something like > OHM. As yet, I've not found the time to do that and since the above > patch works and is relatively easy to maintain... > I think power.c as it was is not a good idea. Generic code does not know the best way of shutting down/suspending a certain box. However having an arch- (or even board-) specific version of power.c that pligs directl and poperly into appropriate PM mechanism makes more sense. If certain platforms need it I don't see a reason to prevent them from doing so. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 10:34 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. > > It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus > > branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). There was a long discussion thread about this a while back. There were a lot of differing views but in the end no patch to fix up power.c to do anything was accepted. The Zaurus was the reason I raised the issue. It seems power.c was recently removed as it was dead code. > > So in short: > > 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel > > (power button == suspend/resume)? > >Why/Why Not? > > Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or > delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something > else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual > handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done > directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with > power management too tightly. > > However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an > input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your > keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. The proposed changes to power.c were to hook it into things like APM as a "user" event so the power button triggered a suspend event but anything in userspace needing to know about (or veto) it could do so. > > 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would > > appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. > > Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. Currently I still patch this functionality into the Zaurus kernels (basically by resurrecting power.c with the patches I used to apply to it added in): http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/patches/input_power-r9.patch This works for 2.6.23 but doesn't seem to work in 2.6.23-git9. I've not looked into why yet. In the current climate, this will never make mainline kernels so I will be considering other options such as adding support into something like OHM. As yet, I've not found the time to do that and since the above patch works and is relatively easy to maintain... Cheers, Richard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
Hi Richard, On Friday 19 October 2007, Richard Purdie wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 10:34 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). There was a long discussion thread about this a while back. There were a lot of differing views but in the end no patch to fix up power.c to do anything was accepted. The Zaurus was the reason I raised the issue. It seems power.c was recently removed as it was dead code. That's because nothing in mainline was using it. So in short: 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power button == suspend/resume)? Why/Why Not? Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with power management too tightly. However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. The proposed changes to power.c were to hook it into things like APM as a user event so the power button triggered a suspend event but anything in userspace needing to know about (or veto) it could do so. 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. Currently I still patch this functionality into the Zaurus kernels (basically by resurrecting power.c with the patches I used to apply to it added in): http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/patches/input_power-r9.patch This works for 2.6.23 but doesn't seem to work in 2.6.23-git9. I've not looked into why yet. In the current climate, this will never make mainline kernels so I will be considering other options such as adding support into something like OHM. As yet, I've not found the time to do that and since the above patch works and is relatively easy to maintain... I think power.c as it was is not a good idea. Generic code does not know the best way of shutting down/suspending a certain box. However having an arch- (or even board-) specific version of power.c that pligs directl and poperly into appropriate PM mechanism makes more sense. If certain platforms need it I don't see a reason to prevent them from doing so. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 10:34 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). There was a long discussion thread about this a while back. There were a lot of differing views but in the end no patch to fix up power.c to do anything was accepted. The Zaurus was the reason I raised the issue. It seems power.c was recently removed as it was dead code. So in short: 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power button == suspend/resume)? Why/Why Not? Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with power management too tightly. However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. The proposed changes to power.c were to hook it into things like APM as a user event so the power button triggered a suspend event but anything in userspace needing to know about (or veto) it could do so. 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. Currently I still patch this functionality into the Zaurus kernels (basically by resurrecting power.c with the patches I used to apply to it added in): http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/patches/input_power-r9.patch This works for 2.6.23 but doesn't seem to work in 2.6.23-git9. I've not looked into why yet. In the current climate, this will never make mainline kernels so I will be considering other options such as adding support into something like OHM. As yet, I've not found the time to do that and since the above patch works and is relatively easy to maintain... Cheers, Richard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is the suggested approach on handling powerbutton (in keyboard driver) to >> simply push out the event and let userland handle it? > > Yes. > >> The reason Im asking this is because as you might know Im maintainer for two >> mini-laptop style pda's (HP7xx & HP6xx) and it would simplify my life alot if >> I didn't need to depend on userland applications to be able to >> suspend/resume. >> >> For instance HP6XX receives an interrupt call whenever the powerbutton is >> pressed. Now I could just push out the event and let another program handle >> it but considering it would take a minimum amount of lines to let it simply >> suspend/resume I feel its a waste. >> >> Previously the hp6xx has been allowed to do this "policy" way but that was >> when LinuxSH stod as a side branch to main tree. Now when everything gets >> merged into mainline I need to decide how to do this. >> >> This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should >> apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with >> keyboard and designated power button). >> >> So in short: >> 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power >> button == suspend/resume)? >>Why/Why Not? > > Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or > delay it until system completes some important operation? If I want to prevent the suspend/shutdown from happening, I don't press the button. If my system insists on not shutting down in order to instead run out to power while doing something important - I'm not happy, too. OTOH, maybe you could allocate the storage for the suspend image here instead of creating HUGE swap space and letting the kernel prevent suspend by using it or watching the kernel thrash for hours before each OOM. > Do something > else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? Not needed, possibly not desired. > With actual > handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done > directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with > power management too tightly. You can do something like control_alt_delete() - in fact I'm dedicating 400 KB of RAM for "kill -INT 1" on my desktop, not using suspend. Having an ACPI userspace event is not bad if you intend to use it, but for people who just want shutdown or suspend to happen, it's overkill. -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 79. What's this "any" key I'm supposed to press? Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
Hi Kristoffer, On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Dmitry, > > Is the suggested approach on handling powerbutton (in keyboard driver) to > simply push out the event and let userland handle it? Yes. > The reason Im asking this is because as you might know Im maintainer for two > mini-laptop style pda's (HP7xx & HP6xx) > and it would simplify my life alot if I didn't need to depend on userland > applications to be able to suspend/resume. > > For instance HP6XX receives an interrupt call whenever the powerbutton is > pressed. Now I could just push out the event and let another program handle > it but considering it would take a minimum amount of lines to let it simply > suspend/resume I feel its a waste. > > Previously the hp6xx has been allowed to do this "policy" way but that was > when LinuxSH stod as a side branch to main tree. Now > when everything gets merged into mainline I need to decide how to do this. > > This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should > apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with > keyboard and designated power button). > > So in short: > 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power > button == suspend/resume)? >Why/Why Not? Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with power management too tightly. However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. > 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would appreciate > all opinions on the subject from the gurus. > Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Power button policy and mechanism
Greetings Dmitry, Is the suggested approach on handling powerbutton (in keyboard driver) to simply push out the event and let userland handle it? The reason Im asking this is because as you might know Im maintainer for two mini-laptop style pda's (HP7xx & HP6xx) and it would simplify my life alot if I didn't need to depend on userland applications to be able to suspend/resume. For instance HP6XX receives an interrupt call whenever the powerbutton is pressed. Now I could just push out the event and let another program handle it but considering it would take a minimum amount of lines to let it simply suspend/resume I feel its a waste. Previously the hp6xx has been allowed to do this "policy" way but that was when LinuxSH stod as a side branch to main tree. Now when everything gets merged into mainline I need to decide how to do this. This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). So in short: 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power button == suspend/resume)? Why/Why Not? 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. Best wishes Kristoffer Ericson -- Kristoffer Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Power button policy and mechanism
Greetings Dmitry, Is the suggested approach on handling powerbutton (in keyboard driver) to simply push out the event and let userland handle it? The reason Im asking this is because as you might know Im maintainer for two mini-laptop style pda's (HP7xx HP6xx) and it would simplify my life alot if I didn't need to depend on userland applications to be able to suspend/resume. For instance HP6XX receives an interrupt call whenever the powerbutton is pressed. Now I could just push out the event and let another program handle it but considering it would take a minimum amount of lines to let it simply suspend/resume I feel its a waste. Previously the hp6xx has been allowed to do this policy way but that was when LinuxSH stod as a side branch to main tree. Now when everything gets merged into mainline I need to decide how to do this. This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). So in short: 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power button == suspend/resume)? Why/Why Not? 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. Best wishes Kristoffer Ericson -- Kristoffer Ericson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
Hi Kristoffer, On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings Dmitry, Is the suggested approach on handling powerbutton (in keyboard driver) to simply push out the event and let userland handle it? Yes. The reason Im asking this is because as you might know Im maintainer for two mini-laptop style pda's (HP7xx HP6xx) and it would simplify my life alot if I didn't need to depend on userland applications to be able to suspend/resume. For instance HP6XX receives an interrupt call whenever the powerbutton is pressed. Now I could just push out the event and let another program handle it but considering it would take a minimum amount of lines to let it simply suspend/resume I feel its a waste. Previously the hp6xx has been allowed to do this policy way but that was when LinuxSH stod as a side branch to main tree. Now when everything gets merged into mainline I need to decide how to do this. This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). So in short: 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power button == suspend/resume)? Why/Why Not? Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or delay it until system completes some important operation? Do something else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? With actual handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with power management too tightly. However if you are dead-set on doin it in kernel you coudl register an input_handler in your platform PM code and it will attach to your keyboard. Look for power.c module in older kernels for example. 2. Seeing as my knowledge about this area isn't the best I would appreciate all opinions on the subject from the gurus. Richard Purdie I think might have some pointers. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power button policy and mechanism
Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/16/07, Kristoffer Ericson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the suggested approach on handling powerbutton (in keyboard driver) to simply push out the event and let userland handle it? Yes. The reason Im asking this is because as you might know Im maintainer for two mini-laptop style pda's (HP7xx HP6xx) and it would simplify my life alot if I didn't need to depend on userland applications to be able to suspend/resume. For instance HP6XX receives an interrupt call whenever the powerbutton is pressed. Now I could just push out the event and let another program handle it but considering it would take a minimum amount of lines to let it simply suspend/resume I feel its a waste. Previously the hp6xx has been allowed to do this policy way but that was when LinuxSH stod as a side branch to main tree. Now when everything gets merged into mainline I need to decide how to do this. This is mainly an embedded issue, but I feel it's quite important. It should apply to other devices also like for example Zaurus branches (those with keyboard and designated power button). So in short: 1. Does mainline policy allow static power button events inside kernel (power button == suspend/resume)? Why/Why Not? Could it be that you may want to prevent suspend from happening? Or delay it until system completes some important operation? If I want to prevent the suspend/shutdown from happening, I don't press the button. If my system insists on not shutting down in order to instead run out to power while doing something important - I'm not happy, too. OTOH, maybe you could allocate the storage for the suspend image here instead of creating HUGE swap space and letting the kernel prevent suspend by using it or watching the kernel thrash for hours before each OOM. Do something else, like cleanly disconnect your network connections? Not needed, possibly not desired. With actual handling done in userspace it's all possible. With suspend done directly in kernel it is much harder and couples input subsystem with power management too tightly. You can do something like control_alt_delete() - in fact I'm dedicating 400 KB of RAM for kill -INT 1 on my desktop, not using suspend. Having an ACPI userspace event is not bad if you intend to use it, but for people who just want shutdown or suspend to happen, it's overkill. -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 79. What's this any key I'm supposed to press? Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
