В Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:31:14 +0200 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> пишет:
> On Wed, 17.04.13 17:20, Jan Engelhardt (jeng...@inai.de) wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday 2013-04-17 16:42, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > >On Wed, 17.04.13 06:58, Jan Engelhardt (jeng...@inai.de) wrote: > > > > > >Well, the current logic is that we suspend when the lid is > > >closed,[...] Lid switch inhibitor locks are currently per-VT, i.e. a > > >lock taken by GNOME is considered irrelevant if you switch away from > > >GNOME.[...] So in order to make sure the lid switch suspend works > > >fine even when you happen to switch away from GNOME logind will > > >handle it then. > > > > That reasoning is perfectly fine; the problem is that logind > > acts upon a physical lid state change from the distant past. > > Well, it is level-triggered, not edge-triggered. If the lid is closed > and a lock released we immediately act and suspend. That's the only > reliable and safe way to do that. > One problem is, it breaks existing behavior and quite badly. How users are supposed to start inhibitors on ttyX the very moment they switch to it? It probably needs to be more compatible with exiting behavior by default. I remember something very similar recently ... ah, here it is http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-March/009988.html > Or are you saying that you had an X session running which took the lock, > then closed and reopened the lid, and when you then switched to a VT the > machine was suspended? > _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
