> > There are 32 signals, and signals can carry more information, if
> > required. I really think doing it way UPS-es are done is right
> > approach.
>
> I would think that it would make sense to keep shutdown with all the other
> power management events. Perhaps it will makes more sense to handle UPS's
> through the power management code.
Yes, that would be another acceptable solution. Situation where half
of power managment (UPS) is done with init and half with acpid is not
acceptable. [I doubt UPS users will want to switch. Why invent new
daemon when init is doing perfect job?]
However, I believe that simple way of sending signal to init is best
solution. It will suffice in 99% cases, users already know how to
configure init, and it does not need another process in userspace. In
remaining 1% case, init can simply notify acpid that even came.
I believe that one-patch is still worth applying. *Maybe* signal
should be changed to SIGUSR1 (to make room for SIGUSR2 to be sleep
button).
Pavel
-- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/