From owner-cvs-all Mon Mar 26 17:42:10 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD6A37B71A; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:42:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (robert@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f2R1g4h83109; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:42:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:42:04 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: John Baldwin Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Peter Jeremy , Ian Dowse , Coleman Kane Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/reboot reboot.c In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > 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. Well, my feeling was that part of the potential to "stick" init comes from the complex shutdown procedure. Maybe we need to just assert more strongly that neither "reboot" nor "halt" provides a "gentle" shutdown, and stick with the current signalling technique (not attempt to run any more complex shutdown code), perhaps spacing the time periods a little more. I.e., the status quo is right, modulo a bit of tweaking. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message