Re: olpc-os-builder config file format change

2012-03-02 Thread Chris Leonard
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > > Thoughts/objections? I'm not an OOB user so I will abstatin, but it sounds like a nice simplification and I am interested to hear from actual OOB users. cjl ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.lapt

Re: olpc-os-builder config file format change

2012-03-02 Thread James Cameron
+1 -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

olpc-os-builder config file format change

2012-03-02 Thread Daniel Drake
Hi, I'm proposing the following change to olpc-os-builder configuration files for 12.1.0 and onwards: Currently, the set of modules to load is specified by a "modules" configuration variable in the [global] section. Then, settings for each module can be customised by adding a [section] for each m

Re: 11.3.1 development build 29 for XO-1.75

2012-03-02 Thread Bert Freudenberg
On 02.03.2012, at 18:49, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Upgrade online with: > > olpc-update 11.3.1_xo1.75-28 That should be olpc-update 11.3.1_xo1.75-29 and yes it works (from os28) - Bert - ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org htt

11.3.1 development build 29 for XO-1.75

2012-03-02 Thread Martin Langhoff
This build brings in OFW improvements, audio fixes, olpc-update, ds-backup, powerd and new power logging scripts. It should be updatable via olpc-update -- try the cmdline below. Notes:  - In normal use, the laptop sometimes hangs when idle; very likely when it is suspending or resuming; please

Re: idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't awaken suspended CPU

2012-03-02 Thread Lennert Buytenhek
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:19:43AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote: > > > > One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority > > > > inversion. If the low priority process does: > > > > > > > >fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR); > > > >flock(fd, LOCK_EX); > > > > > > > >

ConsoleKit Removal

2012-03-02 Thread Simon Schampijer
Hi, Fedora is switching away from ConsoleKit and is using systemd instead [1]. Looks like olpc-utils needs to be updated to reflect that. We seem to open/close a ConsoleKit session in olpc-dm.c. Regards, Simon [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval [2] http://dev.laptop.org/

Re: idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't awaken suspended CPU

2012-03-02 Thread Jon Nettleton
On Mar 2, 2012 11:06 AM, "Lennert Buytenhek" wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:50:16AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote: > > > > One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority > > > inversion. If the low priority process does: > > > > > >fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR); >

Re: idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't awaken suspended CPU

2012-03-02 Thread Lennert Buytenhek
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:50:16AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote: > > One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority > > inversion. If the low priority process does: > > > >fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR); > >flock(fd, LOCK_EX); > > > > and the high priority proces

Re: idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't awaken suspended CPU

2012-03-02 Thread Jon Nettleton
On Mar 2, 2012 10:37 AM, "Lennert Buytenhek" wrote: > > One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority > inversion. If the low priority process does: > >fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR); >flock(fd, LOCK_EX); > > and the high priority process then also does: > >

Re: idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't awaken suspended CPU

2012-03-02 Thread Lennert Buytenhek
One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority inversion. If the low priority process does: fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR); flock(fd, LOCK_EX); and the high priority process then also does: fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR); flock(fd, LOCK_EX); a

Re: idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't awaken suspended CPU

2012-03-02 Thread Jon Nettleton
Although the idea sounds good, the mechanism of using nice is very 2007 :-) This should be accomplished by putting this type of process in a specific cgroup. We can then use the cgroup freezer to freeze all tasks in that group, and thaw it when we see fit. I used a similar mechanism to fix the p

idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't awaken suspended CPU

2012-03-02 Thread John Gilmore
Here's a power-saving idea that's been marinating since 2007 (in an obscure corner of my mail queue). When I reviewed it today I didn't see anything too wrong with it. John Message-Id: <200710240912.l9o9c1k2026...@new.toad.com> To: gnu Subject: OLPC idea: set a niceness value under which