Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:44:05 +0430
From:      takCoder <>
To:        "Teske, Devin" <>
Cc:        Dan Nelson <>, "" <>
Subject:   Re: apply /etc/ttys changes on system
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F971CF@ltcfiswmsgmb21>
References:  <> <> <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: <>