Hallo Laurent! > I am *only* suggesting that process 1 exiting should be taken as a > hard reboot or poweroff instruction, instead of a panic instruction.
It looks to me, the problem is, that current code in kernel to do the poweroff is run in a user process. If process 1 exits there is (or shall be) no more user process to execute this code. Beside this poweroff is not that simple as it ought to be. It has to shutdown the hardware/system in the proper order which needs synchronization function and other stuff running behalf a scheduled process. So implementing a none panic behavior on process 1 exit would need to start a special kernel thread for shutdown purpose. But what about this: When process 1 exits, is the system in a safe state that allows to start another process to do any successful work? I ought you can't always answer this question with a YES. So it is better to panic ... which reboots if so configured. ... just some thoughts on that topic. ... but I ack, it would be a nice feature if kernel does a clean poweroff if process 1 is EXITED (not terminated) with exit code Zero. In any other case the panic seems to me the be best choice. A possible argument to kernel developers would be: On small and dedicated systems it is possible that the Linux kernel is more likely used like a conventional single user DOS system. There you do not boot into a conventional init process. Instead you run a program or script that controls the systems behavior. On exit of that program/script (running as process 1) the kernel shall do a clear poweroff without extra need to code this at the end of the script. -- Harald _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
