Re: Common power management infrastructure
John Hasler wrote:
> Perhaps you could use the runlevel system itself. There are
> plenty of unused levels.
Although I think that the power management infrastructure should
be integrated with the init infrastructure, I don't think it will
suffice just to use, e.g., runlevel 9 for the suspended state.
The main reason is that power expenditure levels aren't fully
comparable with service activation runlevels. Another reason is
that there are too many power management events to be handled
this way (if we want to restrict ourselves to using runlevels
S and 0 through 9).
Should the new power management infrastructure be designed as
part of a new init system to be introduced after sarge?