On Saturday 17 May 2008 02:43:48 Victor Lowther wrote: > 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: > > >
> > > 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. Imho it would be nicer to have all boundaries begin at a multiple of ten, e.g. 00-49 50-69 70-89 90-99 > > > 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. How about running hooks without a numeric prefix first? This makes it obvious that they do not need a special ordering. Regards, Till
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
