On Sunday 25 January 2009 12:53:23 Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 25, Gabriel Burt <gburt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 17:44 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > People usually want to use pm-utils to suspend the system instead of > > > the raw kernel interface, so I added an option to just exit after > > > configuring the wakeup time. > > > > Isn't this what the "on" option did already? > > No, "on" keeps waiting until the alarm fires. Even worse, if you do > something like "rtcwake -m on -s 60 & pm-utils suspend" then rtcwake > will miss the event and stay around forever keeping the rtc fd open and > preventing other applications from accessing it. > I am not attached to these changes, but something is needed to make > rtcwake actually useful. I can't see how it could be used with pm-utils > in its present form nor the use cases for directly accessing the kernel > suspend interface. rtcwake seems to work just fine to suspend a system w/out using pm-utils -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
