On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 16:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Victor Lowther > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 10:47 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> Hi Victor, > >> > >> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Victor Lowther > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fair enough, although we should define some critical points in the > > sequence (e.g. after ?? don't rely on modules being loaded, etc), and > > mabye shuffle the hook ordering around a bit (for example, the ordering > > of 50modules to 65alsa is obviously wrong). > > > > As a starting point, how about the following convention: > > > > 00 - 49: user and (most) package supplied hooks that can assume that all > > of the usual services and userspace infrastructure is still running. > > > > 50 - 74: service-handling hooks (mainly stopping and starting services, > > saving any state they may need, etc) > > > > 75 - 89: module and non-core hardware handling (usb, audio, network, > > etc). > > > > 90 - 99: reserved for critical pre-suspend hooks, starting with 90chvt > > and 90modules and ending with 99video > > > > At or before 50, you can assume that all services are still enabled. > > > > At or before 75, you can assume that all modules are still loaded. > > I think that convention is reasonable. Udev is a far more complicated > system than pm-utils, and it's gotten away fine without enforcing any > serious restrictions on the rules files. If a rule file is in the > wrong location, well, then move it to a better one. But I think the > above specification is good.
I will go ahead and code this bit up, and if it ends up being the only thing out of all these threads that I put into master I will call it a win. :) > > If we want to try and enforce this convention, we will want to ignore > > all hooks whose names do not begin with a numeric prefix. This is also > > easuly codeable. > > Enforcement is probably good, and a warning would probably be good, > too. Silently ignoring a hook that used to run would be lame. Yeah, I will continue to log all hooks that did not run with the reason why. > > Hmmm... my proposed patch series does not re-implement hook handling, it > > merely extends it -- right now in this patch series abort-on-error is > > not implemented, and if you do not remove numeric prefixes from the > > hooks they will run in exactly the same order they used to. The only > > difference is that hooks without a numeric prefix will run in parallel > > with eachother, and we will not run the core hooks until the aux hooks > > finish (and as a bonus, the system will be up and usable without needing > > to wait for the aux hooks to finish). > > You're right, it's extended, not re-implemented. I just don't see > enough justification for it. The tradeoff in complexity and confusion > isn't enough for the gain in functionality, IMO. Cause really, the > pm-utils hooks are just a handful of commands to run besides the > actually important part of suspending and resuming. For nearly all > users, running the commands in a serialized order is perfectly > adequate. But if you want to extend the hooks in a regression-free, > backwards-compatible way, drive on. :) > -- > Dan -- Victor Lowther Ubuntu Certified Professional _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
