Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:10:18 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>, Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>, Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/reboot reboot.c Message-ID: <XFMail.010326151018.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010326125637.74228F-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26-Mar-01 Robert Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Coleman Kane wrote:
>
>> I am in agreement with Kris and Garrett on this one. I too have seen
>> Linux init hold up the system until it is powered off. Typically, this
>> is because of my own stupidity, but it is nice to be able to seperately
>> down the box gracefully.
>
> However, what you could imagine is a scenario where: (a) reboot(8) and
> halt(8) signal init(8) to perform sane system shutdown by default, but (b)
> have a new flag that specifies that rather than taking down the system via
> the supported shutdown sequence, to directly kill system processes and
> request the kernel halt the system. This would distinguish the sane and
> orderly shutdown of init from the "it's not working" behavior of reboot
> and halt, while combining code paths in the common ("it is working") case.
Since reboot will still need the code for the fallback case, this doesn't avoid
any of the code duplication. This would just be more work than what we have
now w/o any gain that I can see. :-P If you want to share the code, stick it
in a library.
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010326151018.jhb>