Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-18 Thread Matt Thomas
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:52 25PM, David Young wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: >>> Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power >>> handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any re

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-17 Thread Paul Goyette
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, David Young wrote: It is a generic capability. ... That's the conclusion I came to. ... ISTM watchdog timers should eventually be refactored in this way: each watchdog timer in the system should have a corresponding pseudo-device, an instance of wdog(4). wdog(4) provide

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-17 Thread David Young
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 05:29:19AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, David Young wrote: > >3 Watchdog prevents suspension > > As I indicated, this is fairly easy to do, simply check if the w-dog > is armed or not. > > The attached patch provides an ipmi_suspend() method to impleme

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-17 Thread Paul Goyette
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 06:14:39PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: Would it be sufficient for ipmi(4) to refuse to suspend (return false from the suspend method) if the watchdog is active? Or should it make some sort of effort to disable the watchdog, and

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-17 Thread Paul Goyette
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, David Young wrote: ipmi(4) should probably not suspend if its watchdog timer is active. Would it be sufficient for ipmi(4) to refuse to suspend (return false from the suspend method) if the watchdog is active? Yes. I think that's the right thing to do for now. This is

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-16 Thread David Young
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 06:14:39PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, David Young wrote: > > >On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: > >>Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power > >>handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-16 Thread Jukka Ruohonen
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 06:14:39PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: > Would it be sufficient for ipmi(4) to refuse to suspend (return false > from the suspend method) if the watchdog is active? > > Or should it make some sort of effort to disable the watchdog, and > attempt to reenable the watchdog du

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-16 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, David Young wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason for anything special to happen either at suspend or resume, and the lack o

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-16 Thread Steven Bellovin
On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:52 25PM, David Young wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: >> Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power >> handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason for anything >> special to happen either at suspend or res

Re: Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-16 Thread David Young
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: > Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power > handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason for anything > special to happen either at suspend or resume, and the lack of a > power handler prevents the syste

Add NULL power handler to x86/ipmi(4)

2010-07-16 Thread Paul Goyette
Is there any reason anyone can think of to not add a NULL power handler to the ipmi(4) driver? I can't see any reason for anything special to happen either at suspend or resume, and the lack of a power handler prevents the system from going to sleep at all. Proposed patch is attached. --