[Pm-utils] Add --print-reply to dbus-send to avoid dropping the message

Richard Hughes hughsient at gmail.com
Fri Sep 19 08:08:31 PDT 2008

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:57 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 15:41 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:58AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > Trivial patch attached to fix behaviour of dbus-send. Description and
> > > solution in patch. Please review.
> > 
> > I think the --print-reply was removed, since it would slow down suspending
> > considerably.

A single method to NetworkManager that's a NOP?

> > Couldn't we - at least for the suspend case - just put the dbus-send
> > into the background? NM should be set to offline by g-p-m or kpowersave
> > already anyway before pm-utils come into play, shouldn't it?
> g-p-m appears to have done so for the last 3 years.

Sure, but doing the second "down" after the first is super quick, and
works in the case of computers without g-p-m or kpowersave.

> Does network manager have a d-bus method that we can use to query its
> current state?  If so, might be better to see if network manager is
> already asleep, and do nothing on suspend/resume if that is the case.

IIRC, that's what the method already does, if already down then exit
straight back.

> Also, email referenced  in the patch was from last March -- has d-bus
> been fixed since then?

No. It required lots of changes, and havoc didn't see it as a priority.

I guess the real question is that maybe we should just fix the kernel
drivers rather than poke NM. I'll talk to Dan W.


More information about the Pm-utils mailing list