From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 11 19:38:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00652 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:38:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00640 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:37:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA11061; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:37:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd011014; Tue Aug 11 19:37:27 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA06284; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:37:15 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199808120237.TAA06284@usr01.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Question about shutdown To: walter@fortean.com (Bruce M. Walter) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:37:15 +0000 (GMT) Cc: billf@chc-chimes.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Bruce M. Walter" at Aug 11, 98 11:56:24 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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