Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:42:04 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@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: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010326204002.81313C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010326151018.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010326204002.81313C-100000>