On Fri, 24.01.14 18:18, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 2014/1/24 Colin Guthrie <gm...@colin.guthr.ie>: > > 'Twas brillig, and Tom Horsley at 24/01/14 15:44 did gyre and gimble: > >>> However, something like that can never be the default, we need to give > >>> services the chance to shut down cleanly and in the right order. > >> > >> I didn't ask for any change to any default, I just asked for > >> users to be able to make the shutdown process proceed when > >> they have more information than systemd has about the chances > >> of success of some random stop job. > >> > >> Without that, what you *will* get is people pulling the > >> power plug which has a vastly greater chance of screwing up > >> the system than not waiting for a single stop job. > > > > Perhaps just displaying the timeout would be useful here. > > Making the shutdown more verbose in such a situation would imho be a > good idea, showing a countdown or something like that with a note for > which service systemd is currently waiting to be shutdown. > > I completely agree with Tom here: In situations where on shutdown (or > boot for that matter) the system blocks for longer then 30-60 secs and > no feedback at all most people will simply assume the system got stuck > and do power-reset.
Yupp, Michal had the same idea, that's why there is the eye-of-sauron animation in place... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel