Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:26:18 +0000 From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> To: FreeBSD Arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New reboot flag: -c for 'power cycle' Message-ID: <bf3a7bb6-94e3-91f9-b61a-f6ab04c952f3@NTLWorld.COM> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfo8wFQh=aia6=HgtawYiV%2BmXYvWLoiJsZf1SqRa3ds36g@mail.gmail.com> References: <01741ade-cd76-3e7a-2b75-0d9984a6ee90@NTLWorld.COM> <CANCZdfo8wFQh=aia6=HgtawYiV%2BmXYvWLoiJsZf1SqRa3ds36g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh: > * system-manager now treats SIGWINCH differently on non-Linux > operating systems, treading it as a request to invoke a new > powercycle service. > > SIGRTMIN+6, unused in the systemd system, is the Linux equivalent. > > * system-manager now treats SIGRTMIN+16 as the underlying actual > powercycle request, which it translates to either RB_POWERCYCLE if > it is present in the C library headers, or RB_AUTOBOOT if it is not. > > * There is now a new system-control powercycle subcommand, which > defaults to sending SIGWINCH/SIGRTMIN+6 or SIGRTMIN+16. > > It looks like all the SIGRT* signals are user defined, and can be used > for any purpose by the application. It could easily be SIGRTMIN+6 as > it is SIGWINCH and we could ditch SIGWINCH on FreeBSD in init as well > (since it's only been in -current for a few days). Would that suffice > to address the compatibility concerns? There's no reason to be > gratuitously different here. > True, but it's not my softwares that you and I have to worry about. I've just double checked, and the very thing that my softwares themselves are being compatible with here has already used SIGRTMIN+16 and SIGRTMIN+6, so I am going to adjust to +17 and +7 . I'll let the systemd people know. Let's see what transpires from that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bf3a7bb6-94e3-91f9-b61a-f6ab04c952f3>