[Pm-utils] Some thoughts about some of the hooks

Peter Jones pjones at redhat.com
Tue Oct 10 16:58:03 PDT 2006

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 17:18 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:

> > - shouldn't the "session daemons" actually do this? Send a "going to suspend"
> >   signal which NM (and others) will listen to?
> gnome-power-manager currently does this, but it NetworkManager doesn't
> mind being asked twice.

Hrm.  Actually, that may be a source of some bugs.  Not 100% sure
though, let me think about it some more.

But if it is or not, pm hooks should be doing this, not g-p-m, because
(at least according to plan) it will be common to use NM independently
of the desktop.

> > 90clock:
> > - setting the hwclock before suspend is only needed if your cmos clock runs
> >   badly wrong. If you do not have ntpd running (no network, notebook), then
> >   it might make things even worse. Resetting system time after resume from
> >   the cmos clock is not needed, the kernel does this already.
> >   (We had this option in powersaved since up to 2.6.7(?) the kernel did not
> >   do this correctly. After the kernel was fixed, we set the default to "off".
> >   I never had a bugreport about it ever since, so i wanted to remove it from
> >   powersaved anyway).
> I know nothing about this one. Peter?

It's mostly crackrock, but what really needs to happen is for ntpd to
join the modern world.  Then we throw this out entirely.


More information about the Pm-utils mailing list