Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:26:53 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r332773 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <CACNAnaFJ_C9uqM4O9KyBbjPRRq%2Bsk9%2B-DfDBeTo1TG8-Sh=kKg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaF6E1g5rh149THRUFu8_GqhSoiJ=qMBFNVZK5Sx10f5Zg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201804191502.w3JF2sgQ051472@repo.freebsd.org> <201804191516.w3JFG99V066371@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <CACNAnaFCmFY3nS2wZx=qzdzip1nQTzVO3hexiGP5WV43WrAZ5A@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfrUzmokt8hDMz_ggcqVAp701-HHzc=_MymEAdxcUYQUog@mail.gmail.com> <CACNAnaF6E1g5rh149THRUFu8_GqhSoiJ=qMBFNVZK5Sx10f5Zg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Rodney W. Grimes >>> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >>> >> Author: kevans >>> >> Date: Thu Apr 19 15:02:53 2018 >>> >> New Revision: 332773 >>> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/332773 >>> >> >>> >> Log: >>> >> Fix ddb rc script >>> >> >>> >> r288291 added a call to limits(1), which isn't available before >>> >> partitions >>> >> are mounted. This broke the ddb rc script, which does not provide its >>> >> own >>> >> start_cmd. >>> >> >>> >> Alleviate the situation here by providing a start_cmd. We still have >>> >> other >>> >> problems with diskless setups that need to be considered, but this is >>> >> a >>> >> start. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Also didn't cy identify a second one of these? >>> > Or am I confusing yet another issue? >>> > >>> >>> He identified a second early script that didn't specify start_cmd, but >>> it was a non-issue because it's invoked independently of rc.subr. >> >> >> One would think that it shouldn't invoke limits at all if foo_limits= wasn't >> specified... Would make the feature much less invasive. >> > > foo_limits was introduced long after the initial invocation, which was > introduced to enforce consistent limits of daemons run from rc.subr. > Not doing this due to the lack of foo_flags would certainly kill the > original intent, I'm afraid. I do wonder if some kind of kenv var or something would be appropriate to disable this whole mess for some setups that it just clearly won't work in, but maybe that's a terrible thought.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaFJ_C9uqM4O9KyBbjPRRq%2Bsk9%2B-DfDBeTo1TG8-Sh=kKg>