On Mon 13. Nov - 12:57:06, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Holger Macht wrote:
> >Additionally, can we let pm-utils return one descriptive message about the
> >reason for the failure, if one is present? Nothing very verbose, just
> >something like 'Module xz failed to unload' (just an example, of
> >course). This would be something that can be shown to expirenced users.
>
> Certainly, I'm not opposed to that, patches welcome. Synchronous failures,
> however, are not very common
This reason would still be in the logfile which stores the state of the
system, such as lsmod. It's just a summarization about what went wrong
that in case pm-utils knows the exact reason why it failed.
>
> >Yes, we should definitely add a HAL method to get the output.
>
> There's a small technical obstacle insofar that method calls on the
> non-standard interfaces on HAL implemented by
> running a binary can only returns integers (not true for addons, they can
> return anything they want). This is
> probably something that is fixable though. I'll look into this.
Ok, good.
> >We should definitely use the pm-utils logfiles for this. I will send a
> >logging hook to the pm-utils list in a few minutes.
>
> The stuff in HAL will still write a preamble (with e.g. /sbin/lsmod output)
> and possibly a postamble too. I think
> that belongs in HAL, not pm-utils, because HAL provides the asynchronous
> error handling, pm-utils does not.
But if it would be done in pm-utils, pm-utils would also useable without
HAL, so it would be some kind of separate. HAL would only be the interface
between the desktop and pm-utils.
Can't we agree on a preamble and postamble pm-utils writes to the log?
Regards,
Holger
_______________________________________________
Pm-utils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
