> > willing to exercise this power. We would not break compatibility
> > with any std kernel by instead having a apmd send a "reject all"
> > ioctl instead, and so deal with events without having the pressure
> > of having to reject or accept them, and let us remove all the veto
> > code from the kernel driver. Or am I missing something?
>
> That sounds workable. But the same program could reply to the events
> just as well as issue the ioctl 8)
Having more than one program holding the veto on each event is a bit
of a hassle. Keeping track of "replies" is also a bit of a
hassle. It'd be simpler to let userspace handle everything in line
with e.g. the ACPI power button press, and suspend or turn off the
machine in the normal manner.
[...]
--http://www.penguinpowered.com/~vii - 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/