expanding the inhibit spec

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at gmx.de
Sat Jan 11 01:11:54 PST 2014

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:49:19PM -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014, at 7:47, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > The delay locks how logind implements them right now have the benefit
> > that they are globally staged: we ask programs to prepare for shutdown
> > without actually telling them to shutdown. Only when everything went
> > according to plan and we still desire to execute the operation then we
> > will go to the next step and actually shut down things...
XSMP reloaded. ^^

> > Your SIGTER approach otoh is destructive immediately: it's a much
> > stricter request to apps, they not only have to prepare for the
> > operation they also hve to do it.
> From a UI standpoint this "we must do it now" approach it exactly what
> I want.  I don't like the possibility that an application can go from
> "tell me when you're shutting down so I can tend to some last minute
> things" to "oh wait!  stop!  abort!".
nice parody ...

> That's why I prefer two completely separate mechanisms: block to stop
> the process from occurring in the first place, and (if no blocks are
> there) a round of signals, after which there is absolutely nothing that
> apps can do to prevent the shutdown from proceeding.
there is no need to have two separate mechanisms here.
of course there should be an additional safety net (say, systemd nukes the
complete cgroup after the session manager exits), but there is no need
at all to implement the actual session management via two independent

More information about the xdg mailing list