I suppose the abstract socket solution, which has been tested and closes the window where the orderly poweroff successfully executes reliably,
is a solution with minimal impact. On 02/15/2018 05:09 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Deb McLemore <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Any logic attempting to guess at the state of startup will give false >> confidence that the signaling setup is completed. > The case of init not being ready to handle its duties for an extremely > early process is in itself a rather corner case. I would imagine > some people seeing as a bug, and maybe even having kernel fixed > to avoid it. > > I can just disagree to cater for this case and propose people affected > by it to have a special /sbin/poweroff script with whatever magic they want. > E.g.: > > #!/bin/sh > while true; do > /bin/busybox poweroff "$@" > /bin/sleep 1 > done > > So far I'm open to adding a workaround in poweroff code, if it's not > adding stuff to the init per se - why add bloat to the process which > is always there? > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
