On Tuesday 09 September 2008 10:44, Vladimir Dronnikov wrote: > > > > > > and stage 3 is not needed at all - "killall5 -TERM" etc still works, > > > > no need to talk to init. > > So we do not rely on runsvdir (pid 1) to shut children runsv's down on > getting HUP?
Well, yes. If TERM is supposed to shut down any program cleanly, why do we need yet another convention at all? > > Even killall5 -KILL won't. Process with PID 1 is not killed, > > even if it is a shell. Kernel will not panic. > > Accidental TERM to runsvdir will cause system to just die in a _very_ > unclean way. Since runsvdir dies suddenly and kernel just panics. I do not run runsvdir as process with PID 1. Thus when it exits, kernel does not panic. > There should be something behind runsvdir to flush the system gracefully -- > so called stage 3. Why? Are you saying you have programs which do not exit correctly on TERM? Those programs are broken. > And if so, we can not just exec runsvdir at the end of > init. M.B. patch runsvdir so it could take a command to execute upon exit? Or execute this command before killall5 -TERM. This way no patching is required. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
