Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:03:15 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org>, Anthony Jenkins <Scoobi_doo@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: disabling sleep when shutting down Message-ID: <1560128.HC08lqgeSM@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <560264E8.4060407@freebsd.org> References: <55FA3848.7090802@freebsd.org> <1905488.VHUbJhcB3l@ralph.baldwin.cx> <560264E8.4060407@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 01:38:00 AM Colin Percival wrote: > On 09/22/15 15:38, John Baldwin wrote: > > I kind of think just setting the LID switch sysctl during shutdown > > is probably fine. > > It's all a matter of how general a solution we want, I guess. My immediate > issue was the lid switch, but I never like solving a small problem if I can > address a more general issue instead. ;-) > > > That said, if you want to do this in the kernel, there's no reason to > > make this x86-specific. powerpc laptops can suspend but don't use > > ACPI to do so. Can you just have an MI sysctl that init frobs? It > > doesn't hurt to do so on platforms that don't support suspending (the > > knob would just be a no-op). > > This makes sense to me. kern.shutdownpending meaning "userspace has > informed the kernel that the system will be shutting down soon"? This > could conceivably be used by other systems where it doesn't make sense > to do something just before shutting down. > > Or should we stick to a more restricted kern.insomniac meaning "the > kernel should not suspend"? (Or, less poetically, kern.suspend_blocked?) > > Any preferences? I think suspend_blocked is fine for now. We may find that there are other use cases in the future. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1560128.HC08lqgeSM>