From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 14 14:39:58 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FD91065698; Mon, 14 May 2012 14:39:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E83C8FC18; Mon, 14 May 2012 14:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 63.imp.bsdimp.com (63.imp.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4EEaeAx042761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 14 May 2012 08:36:41 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <4FB0CF88.5010309@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:36:40 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3D895644-0BA5-44F7-AC8F-07323729C1AA@bsdimp.com> References: <20120513220646.GA12826@stack.nl> <4FB0CF88.5010309@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (harmony.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.6]); Mon, 14 May 2012 08:36:41 -0600 (MDT) Cc: Jilles Tjoelker , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] halt/reboot/shutdown cleanup X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:39:58 -0000 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=