On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 07:27:23AM -0700, Liane Praza wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:11:21PM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote: > >>Nicolas Williams wrote: > >>>Well, yes; that implies strict shutdown ordering, at least for the last > >>>one or two services. > >>Well, sure. Isn't sequencing startup and shutdown SMF's job? > > > >I was alluding to the fact that for a long time SMF didn't (does it > >now?) get shutdown ordering right. > > Can you be specific, rather than alluding? SMF does shutdown in reverse > dependency order as of the fix for 6207705, which was 3 years ago in > onnv and 2 years ago in s10.
That one. My memory failed me badly on this. > [1] I have a concern about a 'run-last' mechanism, given that there were > two posited consumers for it within 24 hours of it being proposed, which > is the same thing that happens every time such a mechanism is proposed. I agree. That's why remounting / (and /usr, and...) -o ro before all such services sounds better -- it then matters less which goes last.
