Re: kernel apm code (PR#128)

Hi,

> 
>  David Balazic <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > While isn't this merged into the official kernel ?
> 
> The maintainer hasn't the time to do it. He promised me he would in

True.

> February, when I telephone, but hasn't bothered to do anything

I am sorry about that, but I have been very busy among other things
changing jobs (which is always a pain and time consuming).

> AFAICS. I hacked together the following patch for it a while ago,
> which updated APM_IOC_REJECT for slightly more recent kernels (be
> warned, I think I made some mistakes)

Thanks for this, I will review it and post a patch based on it (with
due accredition of course).

> I made a (IMHO) better version called pmpolicy, based on different
> principles. More information is available at
> 
>         http://john.snoop.dk/programs/linux/offbutton/
> 
> The most recent version of the patch (for 2.4.2) is not yet uploaded
> however - mail me if you want it. It has not been included in the
> kernel, because the APM maintainer Stephen Rothwell didn't like the
> idea of me implementing it, as some people at linuxcare (including
> Stephen) want to do it differently themselves. However this

I obviously took too long a breath last time you said this ...

I did not say the I did not "like the idea of me implementing it, as
some people at linuxcare (including Stephen) want to do it differently
themselves".  What I said the first time was that I preferred the
idea of a user mode daemon interacting with the kernel not the kernel
forking and execing a new process for every event.

The fact that I was speaking to one of my coworkers about a "better"
interface encompassing all the current power management implemetations
in the kernel (currently at least 4) is a side issue.  These discussions
have progressed and will be continued at the 2.5 Developers kickoff
this weekend.

It is important when implementing an API (and that is what we are doing)
to try to get it as right and stable as possible because other developers
do not like interfaces changing ...

> "political" reason aside, Alan Cox says it changes too much for a

Politics doesn't enter into it (as far as I am concerned).

> stable release so I guess it's not going in.

This is true ...

Cheers,
Stephen

P.S. Just so you know, I probably won't have acces to my email for a few
days (it is a long way to San Jose).