On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Lee Bradshaw wrote:
> Your message reminded me of a similar problem. My dell cpx500 has
That's me - always reminding people of problems :)
> I'm inclined to think the current scripts are buggy. Locking the
> machine is not good.
I agree - the ac_power check should be delegated to the scripts in the
event.d directory - after all, the suspend is _going_ to happen anyway,
apmd_proxy can't stop that, so it should simply pass this info on to each
sub-script.
> The script does say kernel support must be enabled, but what does that
> mean? Is there some way to ask the kernel if it has the required
I think it just means that apm support should be available, either
compiled in or in a loaded module. I don't think it really matters if
there is no APM support, since the kernel won't resopnd to APM signals
from the hardware, which therefore won't proceed with the suspension. [1]
[Except maybe for critical suspends, but you're in dangerous territory by
then anyway]
> support? I think it would be much better to query the running kernel
> for this support than to lock the machine if it's not present.
> I'm probably going to file a bug on this if there's not one already
> there. But I was hoping someone on the list might be able to propose a
> good solution.
It _should_ be sufficient to check for the existence of, and possibly
parse the contents of, /proc/apm.
PS: section 4 - isn't that the section of the metal health act that you
can be, well, sectioned under? Or is this a reference to something else?
[just curious]
[1] Unless I've misunderstood completely how APM works.
--
Just one nuclear family can ruin your whole life.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
