Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:53:28 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Abort powerd when no cpufreq(4) support is found Message-ID: <30133A83-88E4-4715-8514-E9229E9AF078@root.org> In-Reply-To: <CAOfDtXPW8ipGE5p=76HQ5pe9wGx0u%2BKYddRYN26pMW6O7wtENA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfDtXO=7ALiBVHdY-hHa158yXoM%2BXXigkU4SObPHRr0h-2iUQ@mail.gmail.com> <E2E769FA-970A-4E1C-805B-DE6397B456C9@root.org> <CAOfDtXPW8ipGE5p=76HQ5pe9wGx0u%2BKYddRYN26pMW6O7wtENA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 9, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Robert Millan wrote: > Hi Nate, >=20 > El 9 d=92abril de 2012 18:06, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> ha escrit: >> The message is fine, but I think an error code of 0 is wrong. Powerd = didn't start, whereas 0 means the daemon launched successfully. >=20 > In that case, may I suggest that we return one of the error codes > recommended by sysexists(3)? EX_UNAVAILABLE seems close enough to the > reason we're aborting. Fine by me. The rc framework or user should be the one to interpret the = error code and realize that it's ok that it's not running (not = supported). -Nate=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?30133A83-88E4-4715-8514-E9229E9AF078>