anchao commented on PR #17216: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17216#issuecomment-3454618755
> > > It's more strange to couple the initialization into shell, do you see any other POSIX OS implement in this way? From the concept, init must be one instance and never exit, but shell may be lunched many times(telnet, ssh, adb shell...) or killed. > > > @JianyuWang0623 's work is the right direction to decouple the initialization from nsh from the architecture. But, it's also has other benefit too: > > > > > > 1. In many simple case(bootloader, ota), we can enable init, but disable nsh > > > 2. Implement the different init solution > > > > > > You are talking about a software requirement, I question how to implement it. > > I just said that shell isn't a right place to implement the system init and monitor functionality. So do you agree that init/monitor should be decouple from shell? > > > I don't agree with Android init approach, but I think system monitoring is a valuable capability. > > There are many init system for POSIX OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Init > > @JianyuWang0623 just provide one of implementation. Anyway, you can still use nsh or provide your own implementation. Nuttx already supports init scripts, which follow shell syntax. The shell is initialized after the script is initialized. If you believe that init should be separated from nsh, the correct approach would be to improve nsh into 2-stage init/shell system while still providing support for legacy scripts within init. However, the Nuttx kernel now uses 2 different startup script syntaxes: Android init and Nuttx init. Do you think this is a good design? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
