From owner-freebsd-mobile Fri Dec 11 12:33:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA24326 for freebsd-mobile-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:33:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA24318; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:33:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA02263; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 21:29:52 +0100 (CET) To: Archie Cobbs cc: imp@village.org (Warner Losh), mike@smith.net.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP : laptop power-down change In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:54:51 PST." <199812111954.LAA27864@bubba.whistle.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 21:29:50 +0100 Message-ID: <2261.913408190@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Not to pick on anybody in particular, but... WHY is it, that AGAIN and AGAIN, without any end is sight, minor changes which everybody and his aunt will be able to live with, generate endless filibustering sagas on the mailing lists ? If you guys have so much time on your hands, why don't you go close a PR or ten ? Poul-Henning In message <199812111954.LAA27864@bubba.whistle.com>, Archie Cobbs writes: >Warner Losh writes: >> In message <199812110803.AAA00533@dingo.cdrom.com> Mike Smith writes: >> : > : Why the change? The current behavior seems right to me. >> : Yes. There is a perfectly good set of run-time options which allow you >> : to determine at any time whether you want to power-off or halt; having >> : a kernel option override this would be stupid. >> >> But the i386 code doesn't *HAVE* a rom monitor to drop back into... >> We just go into a loop that says press any key to reboot. Not exactly >> useful. The apm code is i386 specific, by definition. > > > >The theory is that halt != power down. Anyone can understand this >because there are real world examples of (non i386) computers that >drop into a monitor upon halt. No argument there. > >FreeBSD is (ideally) independent of specific architectures/hardware. >Therefore, to be consistent and non-hardware-specific FreeBSD should >support both -h and -p. > >Now in the subcase that you're running FreeBSD on i386 with no monitor >ROM, then I don't what's wrong with making '-h' and '-p' degenerate, >ie, they both do the same thing: halt the system and cause a power off. > > > >-Archie > >___________________________________________________________________________ >Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message