Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:37:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: walter@fortean.com (Bruce M. Walter) Cc: billf@chc-chimes.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Question about shutdown Message-ID: <199808120237.TAA06284@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980811114442.10690A-100000@aries.fortean.com> from "Bruce M. Walter" at Aug 11, 98 11:56:24 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 1) It requires a kernel patch to perform "safe" shutdowns... This is > because of the way other drivers use the at_shutdown interface and > these patches should first be part of the system. Even if nothing > ever comes of my code, the capacity still exists for a program to > assume it can poweroff when it really can't. If I remember correctly, this patch was to specify that your driver got called last. I think the more correct way to do this would be to call all of the shutdowns once, with (arg & ~RB_POWEROFF), then again with RB_POWEROFF only (presuming arg & RB_POWEROFF == RB_POWEROFF). Alternately, there needs to be an "at_powerdown()", seperate from the "at_shutdown()". I have no idea how you would, without a timer, resolve the UPS vs. APM powerdown issues... 8-(. My gut feeling is that it's important to power the UPS down because of ATX having a slow drain to support the soft poweron power supply (ATX have two supplies in one case). On the other hand, "suspend to disk" needs the APM called, which means suspending the UPS daemon... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808120237.TAA06284>