Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 19:42:54 +0100 From: Michal Varga <michal.varga@stonehenge.sk> To: Aleksandr Rybalko <ray@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vt(4) sysctl inconsistency question Message-ID: <1423248174.885.30.camel@stonehenge.sk> In-Reply-To: <20150206142312.2a9935dc58796e88be92205f@freebsd.org> References: <1423087017.854.20.camel@stonehenge.sk> <20150206142312.2a9935dc58796e88be92205f@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 14:23 +0200, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote: > On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:56:57 +0100 > Michal Varga <michal.varga@stonehenge.sk> wrote: >> [...] > > Interestingly, two cases in particular (excluding SPSC which isn't > > implemented yet) were left out of this configuration, namely the standby > > and suspend modes (STBY, SUSP), making use of those keys completely > > non-optional. > > > > If anyone could tell me, what was the reason for not including sysctls > > for those two modes? > > > > m. > > > Hi Michal! > > When I was work on vt(4) due to lack of knowledge about kbd(4) > internals I decide to not touch it a lot, so I mostly just copy sc(4) > things :) > > IIRC support of such keys/combinations will require some updates to > kbd(4). > > Think, if somebody will prepare patch for such things, guys and maybe > me, will be happy to review and possibly commit it. > > Thanks! Hello Aleksandr, I think you misunderstood what I meant. The code in question is already there, just that some particular cases are not configurable via sysctl: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/dev/vt/vt_core.c?r1=271380&r2=271381&; At lines 500-528, all cases got their own sysctls so you can easily turn their behavior on/off: case SPCLKEY | XXXX: if (vt_XXXX) ... The other three cases (l. 530-540), one of them unfinished though, are missing sysctls, so vt will always execute those actions no matter what. Now that you mentioned copying sc(4) stuff, I cross-checked it with sc sources and you're right, even sc is missing configuration in cases like suspend and standby (which is kinda puzzling, to me). So now the question stands - can we have the rest of this behavior configurable, or is there any opposition to it? Which would mean adding another set of: VT_SYSCTL_INT(kbd_saver, 1, "Enable screen saver keyboard combination." VT_SYSCTL_INT(kbd_standby, 1, "Enable PM standby keyboard combination." VT_SYSCTL_INT(kbd_suspend, 1, "Enable PM suspend keyboard combination." and ading the corresponding 'if (vt_' to those cases that are missing them. If that's ok with you and you're interested, I could submit a patch via PR for review... m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1423248174.885.30.camel>