Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:27:32 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: sclark46@earthlink.net, freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: 6.x acpi powerbutton Message-ID: <49E8D824.1000001@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20090418043432.O34434@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <49DE1F8B.2080400@earthlink.net> <49DE2E6D.5050001@icyb.net.ua> <49DE596E.2050406@earthlink.net> <49DEFF53.1040306@icyb.net.ua> <49DF7A1C.90009@root.org> <20090418043432.O34434@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian Smith wrote: > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nate Lawson wrote: > > Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > on 09/04/2009 23:24 Stephen Clark said the following: > > >> Is there a reason it doesn't send and event like Linux that can be acted > > >> upon by user space other > > >> than signaling init? I like to have a message written in > > >> /var/log/messages that someone pressed > > >> the powerbutton. > > > > > > I think that for all suspend states except S5 userland is notified via > > > devd mechanism and potentially can veto the suspend. S5 (soft-off) is > > > coded to start shutdown immediately. You can try to hack on > > > acpi_ReqSleepState in sys/dev/acpica/acpi.c. > > > > > > I am not sure what is the reason for this special behavior of S5. But I > > > like it, because it sometimes allows me to perform semi-clean shutdown > > > when X goes crazy. But I also see when it could be useful to have S5 > > > request go through userland. So this could be configurable. > > > > The reason for userland getting into the loop in the first place was to > > run programs to shut down devices and reinit them after resume. This > > isn't necessary in the shutdown case because init already sends a > > signal, as you mention. > > > > There's already a mechanism for timing out if userland is not > > responding, so a suspend will ultimately happen whether or not it > > answers. However, that waits for a while (1 minute?) and devd used to be > > optional, so I thought it best to keep the existing S5 behavior > > (immediate shutdown). > > > > It may be ok to enable this for S5 but I don't think it's very useful. > > Perhaps a silly question, but is it too late at this stage of the game > to try logging S5 events to syslog before dying? I agree with Stephen, > logging 'shutdown by powerbutton' surely beats what might otherwise > resemble a spontaneous reboot? Or is something already logged here? I'm not resisting this, but I'm having trouble seeing the importance. What happens differently than if someone hits CTRL-ALT-DEL on a virtual console? -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49E8D824.1000001>