From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Aug 12 06:25:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26683 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:25:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from aries.fortean.com (aries.fortean.com [209.42.229.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA26678 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:25:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from walter@fortean.com) Received: from localhost (walter@localhost) by aries.fortean.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA16458; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:23:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from walter@fortean.com) X-Authentication-Warning: aries.fortean.com: walter owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:23:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce M. Walter" To: Terry Lambert cc: billf@chc-chimes.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Question about shutdown In-Reply-To: <199808120237.TAA06284@usr01.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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). This is certainly a better idea than prioritizing the lists... I had thought that prioritization of shutdown callouts might be useful for other things, but practically it's not. There's still no way to insure a specific callout executes last. > 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-(. This was the primary reason I was 'pro-priorities'... IIRC, there are no flag bits left in the RB_* constants. Separating UPS and APM powerdown flags (and the above idea of spinning through the lists twice) should do the trick. I'll see what I can come up with. > 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... On a side note, some UPS devices will not honor a powerdown request unless a powerfail is in effect. - Bruce ========================================================== || Bruce M. Walter || 426 South Dawson Street || || Principal || Raleigh, NC 27601 USA || || NIXdesign Group, Inc. || Tel: 919.829.4908 || || Concept + Code || Fax: 919.829.4993 || ========================================================== || BSD Unix -- It's not just a job, it's a way of life! || ========================================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message