Subject: Re: [RFC] doshutdownhooks() and friends.
To: Cherry G. Mathew <email@example.com>
From: Cherry G. Mathew <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/30/2006 11:00:01
On 7/28/06, Allen Briggs <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 08:00:51PM +0530, Cherry G. Mathew wrote:
> > Why is this necessarily better than the current hooks based mechanism
> > ? Isn't what Matt proposes doable with minor modifications to the
> > current mechanism ? I suspect wider scope ( powerhooks and general
> > driver infrastructure reworking ), which is why I'm asking in the
> > first place.
> Sort of. If we're changing everything that has shutdown hooks (by
> changing the prototype of the shutdown hook) switching to a slightly
> more generic mechanism (using ca_activate) is not a giant leap.
Answering your initial question about owning this: I can't drive this,
simply because I'm not well acquainted with the device driver
framework ATM . If someone ( Matt ? Jachym ? ) drives the overall
framework, I could help in a support role.
Getting the shutdown hooks diffs ( Doesn't need to be pulled up in to
-release branches ) into -current could be an intermediate step, IMHO.