Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:45:35 +0200 From: Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Sean Bruno <sbruno@miralink.com> Subject: Re: rc functions don't allow processes to shutdown Message-ID: <200708312245.38607.mail@maxlor.com> In-Reply-To: <46D8470B.9030304@miralink.com> References: <46D84609.3080409@miralink.com> <46D84697.800@fsck.ch> <46D8470B.9030304@miralink.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1848841.mkgRyaegMq Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 31 August 2007 18:51:23 Sean Bruno wrote: > Tobias Roth wrote: > > Sean Bruno wrote: > >> I noticed that if rc.conf has ntpd_enable=3D"NO", an invocation of > >> /etc/rc.d/ntpd stop won't actually shut down ntpd. I checked a > >> couple of other processes(like net-snmp) and noted the same > >> behavior. > >> > >> I would have expected that rc would be able to invoke the stop > >> routines if a utility is disabled, but apparently the check for > >> enabled/disabled occurs much too early in the rc handling > >> functions for the stop to fire off. > >> I could investigate further, as I am sure that it's a fairly easy > >> fix to allow the stop functions to be invoked regardless of the > >> enable/disable state. > >> Does it make sense to anyone else that the rc functions should be > >> able to shutdown a process when it has been disabled in rc.conf? > > > > /etc/rc.d/ntpd forcestop > > Indeed one could invoke that. My question is more about what 'stop' > should or should not do. > > Specifically, should it 'stop' when a process has been disabled? Consider this: all init scripts are called with stop on shutdown. If=20 stop always does something, then you'll have many init scripts trying=20 to stop processes that aren't actually running. While this shouldn't hurt the system too much, other than slightly=20 slowing down a shutdown, it doesn't feel like clean design to me. Nor=20 would adding an rc.d-internal-stop. forcestop is a good solution for this issue imo. Cheers Benjamin --nextPart1848841.mkgRyaegMq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBG2H3vzZEjpyKHuQwRAkxrAKCj+ioyyFR/7V4MIgAGBiEjv4VcDgCeL0zT wT2kraQdwID4jD76DXaWeHQ= =LAEx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1848841.mkgRyaegMq--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708312245.38607.mail>