Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 02:25:28 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] halt/reboot/shutdown cleanup Message-ID: <4FB0CF88.5010309@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CA766F13-E02E-4815-9AEE-984BC14F2CB9@bsdimp.com> References: <20120513220646.GA12826@stack.nl> <CA766F13-E02E-4815-9AEE-984BC14F2CB9@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/13/2012 3:42 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
>> Also, the normal forms of halt and reboot will now call shutdown
>> so users get a clear message of the event.
>
> I hate these messages, which is why I always use halt or reboot to
> avoid them.
You hate messages? Seriously?
> I find the additional delays from doing a shutdown -r to
> also be annoying, which is why I never use them.
If things are working as they should be, running rc.shutdown won't cause
any delays at all vs. the brute force method used by 'shutdown'. The
only time you'll see a delay is if something that's being killed
actually needs it to cleanly shut down.
>> Halt and reboot still support the -q option to invoke reboot(2)
>> without anything else. The -d and -n options now require -q
>> (because init is signaled if -q is not used, and init will not do
>> dump or nosync).
>>
>> The -l option of halt and reboot now not only suppresses logging,
>> but also user notification. It does this by signaling init directly
>> and not going through shutdown.
>>
>> The -o option of shutdown goes away because there does not seem
>> any point in executing halt or reboot if they are going to send the
>> same signal to init anyway.
>
> Generally, I think this is a really bad idea, just like the last time
> it was proposed.
This topic comes up very often as users are confused by the fact that we
have 2 different methods for shutdown/reboot, and the ones that seem the
most obvious (halt and reboot) are the most pathological.
IMO we should maintain the old behavior as binaries with scary names
that the anachronists can use in local aliases, and we should modify
halt and reboot in a manner similar to what Jilles is suggesting.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FB0CF88.5010309>