From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 29 17:46:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5AA106566C for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:46:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7D88FC13 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:46:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 526 invoked by uid 399); 29 Sep 2009 17:46:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 29 Sep 2009 17:46:06 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4AC247DC.4010502@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:46:04 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <4AC141B0.4090705@delphij.net> <86ws3iexl3.fsf@ds4.des.no> <86ske5gav0.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: [PATCH] Shutdown cooloff feature X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:46:07 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > I could be convinced by an argument that reboot and shutdown -r should > be the same, I have asked for this several times in the past but don't have the time to generate the patches myself. I think halt should be treated similarly as well. We just had a case (I believe on -stable) where a user was using 'halt' thinking that it would do the same thing as 'shutdown now' but was easier to type. He was having corruption in his ldap db because it wasn't being shut down cleanly. That said, I agree with the posters that have said that there should be overrides to halt and shutdown to force the old behavior. > and that both should talk to init, which should perform the > reboot system call. Since init is what runs rc.shutdown, and it already > knows if it's in multiuser mode (since it defines multiuser mode), it > should be able to DRT. Agreed. > My belief is that most people who type in > "reboot" do so thinking it means the same thing as "shutdown -r ". My experience (both recent as above, and past) is the same. This is especially important in the rc.d world, more so after my semi-recent change to make sure all of our services get shut down cleanly. INRE the original issue of the thread (the 5-second cooloff feature) I am ambivalent about it, but wouldn't oppose it. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection