On Wed, 11.01.12 14:00, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote: > > 'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 11/01/12 13:42 did gyre and gimble: > > i.e. there are a number of processes from the initrd which stick > > around during normal operation which are still to be killed in the > > killing spree, most prominently plymouth. > > Fair point, but in the plymouth case specifically, don't you want to > enable plymouth as soon as X quits and then keep it running hiding away > all that geeky text with a shiney icon/gradient right up until the last > possible moment? > > Does systemd *really* want to kill plymouth on shutdown before it hands > control back to initrd? I'd have thought that we would actually want to > keep it active - initrd starts it, initrd stops it.
Frankly, I don't trust Plymouth there very much, and it's not always clear from where it is started (i.e. might be started from the rootfs too). I am not too concerned about the timing there. i.e. when we kill ply the shutdown is coming so soon anyway, that it should be fine... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
