Re: suspend / hibernate nomenclature

[Andrey Borzenkov]

Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:56:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sunday 08 March 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 08:45:59AM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > We don't have to at all - as far as I've been able to tell, the
>> > > > kernel is utterly consistent in its current usage. The only drivers
>> > > > that emit KEY_SLEEP are either embedded-specific (where it's
>> > > > clearly suspend to RAM and not hibernate), the ACPI driver (where
>> > > > usage in other operating systems is consistent with it being
>> > > > suspent to RAM) and the panasonic and thinkpad drivers which use it
>> > > > consistently. If there's any confusion, it's over the fact that
>> > > > KEY_SUSPEND is is used for suspend to RAM in a (smaller) number of
>> > > > places.
>> > > 
>> > > The fact that we're mapping x->y and y->x is the reason people keep
>> > > getting it wrong.
>> > 
>> > Sure, doing things differently would have made sense several years ago
>> > when nobody was relying on this behaviour. We don't have that option
>> > now - making this change will break things, and we've got no idea how
>> > much it'll break.
>> 
>> Which is a good enough reason to avoid it.
>> 
>> Alternatively, we can add completely new definitions _along_ _with_ the
>> old ones, mark the old ones as obsolete (after some time) and try to make
>> the user space start using the new ones only (that may be difficult,
>> though).
>> 
>> I said I liked the names, but I didn't realize that changing them would
>> break things.
>> 
> 
> I don't think we want to break anything if we can help it. The problem
> with Richard's patch is that it changes meaning of KEY_SUSPEND from STD
> to STR. I would prefer if we could do the following:
> 
> - KEY_SLEEP - leave the keycode, the action should be the default
> system state defined by either platform or user. I expect that the vast
> majority of system have default state similar to S3 so there should not
> be anysurprises.
> 
> - KEY_SUSPEND - provide better comment for its intended usage and maybe
> add KEY_HIBERNATE alias.
> 
> - KEY_SUSPEND2RAM - add a new definition.
> 
> Do you think this would this work?
> 
> I intend to back out the patch in question for the time being.
> 

What about systems that have clear indication of STR and STD on respective 
keys? Should they continue to return KEY_SLEEP for STR? I think this 
conflicts with definition above. So in the long run those should be changed to 
return KEY_SUSPEND2RAM it seems.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/