So, the last question I have is, what is the effect of using a zero
instead of the flags? Sorry if everybody else already knows this,
but if there is a flag that says "temporary", I would suppose that
not using it means "permanent". Likewise, I would suppose that not
using the "immediate" flag means "later". So, what is the difference
between using and not using these flags?
Tony Nguyen wrote:
> FYI, Brian used 0 instead of those flags and it solved the problem. A
> quick look at the code suggests that we probably don't using
> SMF_IMMEDIATE or SMF_TEMPORARY flags. In svcadm.c,
>
> while ((o = getopt(argc, argv, "It")) != -1) {
> if (o == 'I')
> flags |= MARK_IMMEDIATE;
> else if (o == 't')
> flags |= MARK_TEMPORARY;
> else if (o == '?')
> usage();
> ......
> ......
> } else if (strcmp(argv[optind], "maintenance") == 0) {
> callback = force_maintenance;
> } else {
> usage();
> }
>
> if ((err = scf_walk_fmri(h, argc - optind - 1,
> argv + optind + 1, 0, callback, NULL, &exit_status,
> uu_warn)) != 0) {
>
> The 6th argument, NULL value, is what we use to call force_maintenance.
> As the result, force_maintenance always calls set_inst_action with
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON which is the same if we call smf_maintain_instance
> with 0 flag. Below are snippets from force_maintenance and
> smf_maintain_instance
>
> force_maintenance()
> ....
> if (flags & MARK_IMMEDIATE) {
> prop = (flags & MARK_TEMPORARY) ?
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON_IMMTEMP :
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON_IMMEDIATE;
> } else {
> prop = (flags & MARK_TEMPORARY) ?
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON_TEMPORARY :
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON;
> }
>
> set_inst_action(wip->fmri, wip->inst, prop);
>
> smf_maintain_instance()
> ...
> if (flags & SMF_TEMPORARY)
> return (set_inst_action(instance,
> (flags & SMF_IMMEDIATE) ?
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON_IMMTEMP :
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON_TEMPORARY));
> else
> return (set_inst_action(instance,
> (flags & SMF_IMMEDIATE) ?
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON_IMMEDIATE :
> SCF_PROPERTY_MAINT_ON));
>
> I'll file a bug so we can further investigate the issue.
> -tony
>
> Brian Utterback wrote:
>> Notice that my first attempt did not use SMF_IMMEDIATE. I just added
>> that hopefully. I have now removed it again.
>>
>> The output of svcs -l is:
>>
>> # svcs -l ntp
>> fmri svc:/network/ntp:default
>> name Network Time Protocol (NTP)
>> enabled true
>> state online
>> next_state none
>> state_time Tue May 01 09:59:39 2007
>> logfile /var/svc/log/network-ntp:default.log
>> restarter svc:/system/svc/restarter:default
>> contract_id 228
>> dependency require_all/error file://localhost/usr/sbin/ntpq (online)
>> file://localhost/usr/sbin/ntpdate (online)
>> dependency require_any/error svc:/network/service (online)
>>
>>
>> The /var/svc/log/network-ntp:default.log has no entries in it from after
>> the startup. The last line is:
>> [ May 1 09:59:39 Method "start" exited with status 0 ]
>>
>>
>>
>> David Bustos wrote:
>>> Quoth Brian Utterback on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:26:03PM -0400:
>>>> Okay, I tried that, and smf never kills the process nor even puts it
>>>> into maintenance status. Here is the code I have:
>>>>
>>>> /* enter the maintenance mode */
>>>> if ((fmri = getenv("SMF_FMRI")) != NULL) {
>>>> if (0 > smf_maintain_instance(fmri,
>>>> SMF_TEMPORARY|SMF_IMMEDIATE)) {
>>>>
>>>> printf("smf_maintain_instance:%s\n",scf_error());
>>>> exit(1);
>>>> }
>>>> /* sleep until SMF kills us */
>>>> while (1) {
>>>> pause();
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Don't use _IMMEDIATE. What does "svcs -l" report while you're sleeping?
>>> What does your /var/svc/log file say?
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>
>
--
blu
"When Congress started Daylight Savings Time earlier, did
they even consider what affect an extra hour of daylight
would have on global warming? Well, did they?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
