Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:07:49 +0000 From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Cc: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, iedowse@maths.tcd.ie Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/reboot reboot.c Message-ID: <200103222207.aa91848@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:07:36 %2B1100." <20010323080736.A8221@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010323080736.A8221@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>, Peter Jeremy writes: > >Instead of moving the common functionality into a common library, >why not move it into a common process. Why can't reboot(8) just >ask init(8) to massacre all the processes and reboot? (Or, vice >versa, init could spawn reboot(8) to do the same thing). This had certainly crossed my mind too, but for reasons already suggested, it doesn't seem the right thing to do. I'm not convinced that libutil is the right place for such code either - it's not useful enough to appear in a fairly widely-used library. Two other not-so-elegant approaches are: - Share a source file between reboot and init. - Make reboot(8) and halt(8) hard links to init(8), and have init do the right thing according to argv[0]. Ian 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? <200103222207.aa91848>