From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Fri Dec 20 09:06:53 2002
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) id gBK06r559916;
	Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:06:53 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id gBK06o259911
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:06:51 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from marks@ripe.net)
Received: from laptop.6bone.nl (cow.ripe.net [193.0.1.239])
	by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with SMTP id gBK06lvP027400
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 01:06:48 +0100
Received: (nullmailer pid 712 invoked by uid 1000);
	Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:05:50 -0000
From: Mark Santcroos <marks@ripe.net>
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <20021220000550.GA692@laptop.6bone.nl>
References: <3DCCFB94.C964C09D@mindspring.com> <D062BB22-F43E-11D6-83BB-0050E4660701@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D062BB22-F43E-11D6-83BB-0050E4660701@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Handles: MS6-6BONE, MS18417-RIPE
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 01:05:50 +0100
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 2044
Subject: [acpi-jp 2044] Re: acpid implementation?
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: marks@ripe.net
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+021210

Hi Michael, others,

I think I more or less understand for your motivation to handle these things 
in the kernel. However, I am not sure if we are on the same line on the
implementation details.

Personally I have need for the following:

On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 03:56:07PM -0800, Michael Smith wrote:
> >o	Forced hibernate and/or shutdown, pending an empty battery
> 
> Does not require a daemon.

Do you have in mind a simple sysctl (or other (to be invented) mechanism)
that configures this behaviour (like enable/disable) and the kernel
handling the action itself at the moment it is necessary?

I have coded a simple cmbat_kthread which checks the battery state.

Related question is how would I do a shutdown from kernel land?
Can I for example send a signal to init so that it will take care of
things.

Mark

-- 
Mark Santcroos                    RIPE Network Coordination Centre
http://www.ripe.net/home/mark/    New Projects Group/TTM
