[Pm-utils] Release?

[Victor Lowther]

On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 22:52 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2008/3/16, Victor Lowther <victor.lowther at gmail.com>:
> > The hook-disabling mechanism is not primarily for users -- it is for
> >  modules and other hooks.  I added the blacklist-parsing code because it
> >  is a bit more intuitive than masking out a system hook by creating a
> >  nonexecutable file.
> 
> Still, we have two ways now to do exactly the same, which is not good imho.

True.  The advantage of the blacklist is that we do not need to touch
the hooks to disable them.

> >  > Second, do we really need to pass parameters to hooks? I haven't
> >  > needed it so far. Imho we should only add functionality which is
> >  > actually used.
> >
> >
> > I use it.  If I don't pass --quirk-none (or mask 99video out using a
> >  blacklist entry or a nonexecutable hook), then the paramaters hal passes
> >  to pm-suspend will hardlock my system on reboot everytime when it tries
> >  to POST the card.  HAL currently does not take the video card and video
> >  driver into account when deciding which quirks to pass to pm-suspend,
> >  and until it does I will need this sort of functionality.
> 
> We already have /etc/pm/config.d. Why don't we utilise it for that purpose:
> Let's define a new variable  PARAMS (better name welcome) which get's
> appended to PM_CMDLINE. That way you can drop a config file into
> /etc/pm/conf.d/myopts.

That is doable.

> We could do the same for the blacklisted hooks. We simply define (and
> document) a variable DISABLED_HOOKS, which can be set via
> /etc/pm/config.d

That is also doable, but uglier.  We would still have to parse the
environment variable to create the blacklist entries
in /var/run/pm-utils, though.

> I don't think we need special code for these two cases.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> 
-- 
Victor Lowther
Ubuntu Certified Professional