On Sat, Feb 15 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14 2020, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:08:32PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:35:22PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
On Fri, Feb 14 2020, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:08:32PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:35:22PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:08:32PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:35:22PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jan 25 2020, Jeremie
On Thu, Feb 13 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
[...]
> - documents the 60 seconds grace period in the manpage
That part was not accurate. Updated wording:
"After a resume, the effect of those options is inhibited for 60 seconds."
Index: apmd.c
On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:35:22PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 25 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> >> The diff below improves the way apmd -z/-Z may trigger.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:35:22PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 25 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >> The diff below improves the way apmd -z/-Z may trigger.
> >>
> >> I think the current behavior is bogus,
On Wed, Feb 12 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> The diff below improves the way apmd -z/-Z may trigger.
>>
>> I think the current behavior is bogus, incrementing and checking
>> apmtimeout like this doesn't make much sense.
>>
>>
On Sat, Jan 25 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> The diff below improves the way apmd -z/-Z may trigger.
>
> I think the current behavior is bogus, incrementing and checking
> apmtimeout like this doesn't make much sense.
>
> Here's a proposal:
> - on APM_POWER_CHANGE events, check the
Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> The diff below improves the way apmd -z/-Z may trigger.
>
> I think the current behavior is bogus, incrementing and checking
> apmtimeout like this doesn't make much sense.
this all seems reasonable to me.
> - I think we want some throttling mechanism, like
The diff below improves the way apmd -z/-Z may trigger.
I think the current behavior is bogus, incrementing and checking
apmtimeout like this doesn't make much sense.
Here's a proposal:
- on APM_POWER_CHANGE events, check the battery level and trigger
autoaction if needed. This should be
10 matches
Mail list logo