[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b69d1470701250718l58dfbc35rd0b24e5935e32331@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:18:43 -0600
From: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
To: 7eggert@....de
Cc: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, "Alessandro Di Marco" <dmr@....it>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vojtech@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] System Inactivity Monitor v1.0
On 1/25/07, Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de> wrote:
> Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > My own hot button is making sure that the definition of what
> > constitutes user activity is managed in exactly one place, whether in
> > the kernel or not. My naive model would be to put the response at user
> > level, but to provide a single point of definition in the kernel (say,
> > /dev/useractivity or the equivalent) that the user-level daemon could
> > listen to.
>
> Imagine one computer serving two users. Two monitors, two keyboards ...
---
Good point! Of late I've been working on single-user systems, so it
was not at the front of my brain, despite years of building and using
multi-user systems.
It's a point that multi-user systems have struggled with forever (when
somebody inserts a CR in the drive mounted in the system box, which
user do you pop up a media player for?).
I tend to think it's not a kernel-vs-user-space issue, though. To
solve it you need, somewhere, a notion of a "user session" and you
need some way to separate system-level issues (like low-battery) from
user-level issues (like activiating user X's screensaver).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists