Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:44:05 +0430 From: takCoder <tak.official@gmail.com> To: "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> Cc: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: apply /etc/ttys changes on system Message-ID: <CAPkyVLw3hj=TdQGBpTbtaHLW9eshOV9OhNKt5UYSb=rmJHb4zg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F971CF@ltcfiswmsgmb21> References: <CAPkyVLxAxR55DBk%2BVzeMLADS-d28Ke%2B_Jx20U=skxabFYobkfA@mail.gmail.com> <20130619145439.GA48188@dan.emsphone.com> <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F971CF@ltcfiswmsgmb21>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you all for your replys. :) > Why is "kill -HUP 1" unsafe? It's documented in init's manpage: > > Line status (on, off, secure, getty, or window information) may be > changed in the ttys(5) file without a reboot by sending the signal > SIGHUP to init with the command ``kill -HUP 1''. On receipt of this > signal, init re-reads the ttys(5) file. > You are right, it is in the man page. I just wanted to preserve my machine from facing possible side-effects this command may cause, which i may not be aware of, if possible.. If one tty's tc has been changed and i run *kill -HUP 1* command, any current session on that tty will be forcibly closed; but not for those with same tty configs as before. At least, i may loose things, according to the loss of open sessions(though not having faced any problems during tests till now). i know i am responsible for the time of running this command, but do all child PIDs exit normally? I have heard of unwanted reactions on other OS es because of this command, but not for FreeBSD (at least till now).. > Or "init q" As i heard, this command is just the same as "kill -HUP 1". Does "init q" have any difference with the other one, in any aspects?? >FWIW, I've used "kill -HUP 1" on FreeBSD for reloading /etc/ttys >since roughly 1997. No repercussions. Ever. Not once. >It wasn't until sometime in the early 2000s that I found init(8) >mentioning you could do "init q" instead, so since then I've done that. That's the experience! good to hear about that.. Anyhow, i think i will try "init q" from now on. At least seems more handy :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPkyVLw3hj=TdQGBpTbtaHLW9eshOV9OhNKt5UYSb=rmJHb4zg>