From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 12 21:32:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA20049 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mexico.brainstorm.eu.org (root@mexico.brainstorm.fr [193.56.58.253]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id VAA20044 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:32:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from brasil.brainstorm.eu.org (brasil.brainstorm.fr [193.56.58.33]) by mexico.brainstorm.eu.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id GAA04718 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 06:32:18 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by brasil.brainstorm.eu.org (8.8.4/8.6.12) with UUCP id GAA11076 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 06:31:47 +0100 Received: (from roberto@localhost) by keltia.freenix.fr (8.8.4/keltia-uucp-2.9) id BAA18527; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:11:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:11:43 +0100 From: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DEVFS permissions &c. References: <16902.853042470@time.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.57.11 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT ctm#2921 In-Reply-To: ; from J Wunsch on Jan 12, 1997 18:35:42 +0100 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk According to J Wunsch: > Why do they need to be changed? If somebody says `reboot -q', it > doesn't need to go via init. The patch I made at the time is so that if one uses halt/reboot the rc.shutdown is not run. If that change is enough then there is no need to change them. Now, I think some people expect it to be run if one type "reboot". It is more a matter of how much flak we'd get :-) I don't mind having things completed in only the "shutdown" case. It was, in my memory Terry who pushed me to complete the changes to halt/reboot (and I still think it would be better that way) :-) > I think stall() is the wrong thing to do here. If the shutdown script > fails, it's best to log what can be logged, and proceed to really shut > down the system to the desired state. Probably. The patch is 2 years old and I don't remember why some things were done that way since :-) There are probably some things to reconsider. > Otherwise, considere a machine that's rebooted remotely: you _want_ to > have it rebooted, whatever might happen. If it fails to execute part > of the shutdown procedure, you can learn this from the log after it > rebooted. Having it jumping out to single-user will cause a fatal > error since you need an operator on the console afterwards. I agree. > Here's an alarm() missing, to prevent infinite hangs of the shutdown > script. Such an infinite hang should be answered with sending > rc.shutdown a terminate signal, and by syslogging it. Agreed too. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- The daemon is FREE! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 3.0-CURRENT #33: Sat Dec 21 12:57:17 CET 1996