Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:36:40 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] halt/reboot/shutdown cleanup Message-ID: <3D895644-0BA5-44F7-AC8F-07323729C1AA@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB0CF88.5010309@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120513220646.GA12826@stack.nl> <CA766F13-E02E-4815-9AEE-984BC14F2CB9@bsdimp.com> <4FB0CF88.5010309@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 14, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 5/13/2012 3:42 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> I hate these messages, which is why I always use halt or reboot to >> avoid them.=20 >=20 > You hate messages? Seriously? Seriously. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't mock me on this. It is = rude and insulting and not constructive to a dialog. >> I find the additional delays from doing a shutdown -r to >> also be annoying, which is why I never use them. >=20 > 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 are low level interfaces. shutdown is the higher level = interface that people should use. >>> 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). >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> Generally, I think this is a really bad idea, just like the last time >> it was proposed. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. See my other post for a way forward, sans bogusly scary names. Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D895644-0BA5-44F7-AC8F-07323729C1AA>