Re: [MiNT] SIGPWR

[Guido Flohr <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>]

On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 07:35:36PM +0100, Anthony Jacques wrote:
> I'm just an onlooker here, so maybe I missed some important fact... but to
> me this seems kinda pointless. Why are you choosing to add a signal that is
> never likely to be raised (do we have a powerd? how many people have UPS's
> connected to their Ataris? how many of these UPS's support comms to the
> computer?) when we have a tight limit on the available number of signals?

Which other signals do you want to implement?

BTW, why shouldn't SIGPWR not be raised?  You can simply "kill -PWR 1" and
see your machine going down fast.

The powerd shouldn't be a big problem. It's available for Linux, I don't
see why it couldn't be ported to MiNT.
 
> If the powerd sends the signal to init, what appropriate measures does it
> take? send everything SIGTERM? So what does init do if you send it SIGTERM?
> would this not have a similar effect?

init takes whatever measures you specify via /etc/inittab.  It can also
react if the power gets restored and try to cancel a running shutdown.

> To me, this seems like a waste of time, and on a platform with a limited
> number of developers this seems a very strange thing to be worrying about.

So, who is going to use that? I have the chance of getting a UPS and
believe me, I will try to connect it to my TT because I really have power
stability problems here.

Who else? Especially here in Germany, there are quite a few commercial
users who still have an old TT with an ethernet card.  Why shouldn't the
TT communicate with the UPS and schedule the power failure stuff for the
other machines on the net?

Ciao

Guido
-- 
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000/
mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de