Am Samstag, den 27.09.2008, 19:07 -0300 schrieb Werner Almesberger: > Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > > I would not protest on removing the system runlevel 6 trigger, > > Good, that's already half the messiness :-) > > > however I > > would certainly veto on removing the 8 seconds emergency shutdown, since > > that's for cases where userland is entirely unresponsive (no daemon to > > catch that state expected). > > Hmm, how about solving the problem that the daemon is unresponsive > instead ? > > If you separate it from the rest of the framework, the code will be > simple, small, and won't break easily because of some unrelated > changes. If you mlockall, you're immune to out of memory conditions > or a file system failure. If you raise the scheduling priority high > enough, you'll win even against fork bombs.
Yes, we could do that. My opinion on keeping this _emergency_ power down timeout for _when there is no userland running [anymore] at all_ remains unchanged though. :M:
