On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:52 25PM, David Young wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power
handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason for
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 06:14:39PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, David Young wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power
handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason for
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, David Young wrote:
ipmi(4) should probably not suspend if its watchdog timer is active.
Would it be sufficient for ipmi(4) to refuse to suspend (return
false from the suspend method) if the watchdog is active?
Yes. I think that's the right thing to do for now.
This
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, David Young wrote:
It is a generic capability. ...
That's the conclusion I came to.
... ISTM watchdog timers should eventually be
refactored in this way: each watchdog timer in the system should have a
corresponding pseudo-device, an instance of wdog(4). wdog(4)
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power
handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason for anything
special to happen either at suspend or resume, and the lack of a
power handler prevents the system
