On Wed, 17.04.13 21:01, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: > > В Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:31:14 +0200 > Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> пишет: > > > On Wed, 17.04.13 17:20, Jan Engelhardt (jeng...@inai.de) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 2013-04-17 16:42, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > >On Wed, 17.04.13 06:58, Jan Engelhardt (jeng...@inai.de) wrote: > > > > > > > >Well, the current logic is that we suspend when the lid is > > > >closed,[...] Lid switch inhibitor locks are currently per-VT, i.e. a > > > >lock taken by GNOME is considered irrelevant if you switch away from > > > >GNOME.[...] So in order to make sure the lid switch suspend works > > > >fine even when you happen to switch away from GNOME logind will > > > >handle it then. > > > > > > That reasoning is perfectly fine; the problem is that logind > > > acts upon a physical lid state change from the distant past. > > > > Well, it is level-triggered, not edge-triggered. If the lid is closed > > and a lock released we immediately act and suspend. That's the only > > reliable and safe way to do that. > > > > One problem is, it breaks existing behavior and quite badly. How users > are supposed to start inhibitors on ttyX the very moment they switch to > it?
Well, I am not saying this shouldnt be fixed, I am just pointing out why it is how it is. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
