Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:11:26 -0400 From: Stephen Clark <sclark46@earthlink.net> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: 6.x acpi powerbutton Message-ID: <49E944DE.7080409@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <49E8D824.1000001@root.org> 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> <49E8D824.1000001@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Lawson wrote: > 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? > Hi Nate, We have over 500 units in the field that are used as firewall/vpn/routers. They have no console, but they do have a powerbutton. We have had customers say the machine turned itself off. It would be nice to know that someone pressed the power button. Thanks, Steve -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin) "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49E944DE.7080409>