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.
