'Twas brillig, and Tom Horsley at 24/01/14 15:44 did gyre and gimble: >> However, something like that can never be the default, we need to give >> services the chance to shut down cleanly and in the right order. > > I didn't ask for any change to any default, I just asked for > users to be able to make the shutdown process proceed when > they have more information than systemd has about the chances > of success of some random stop job. > > Without that, what you *will* get is people pulling the > power plug which has a vastly greater chance of screwing up > the system than not waiting for a single stop job.
Perhaps just displaying the timeout would be useful here. For me personally, the NFS timeout is a proper pain the backside. A little more cleverness there would be appreciated. e.g. can we not just do lazy umounts by default for NFS (or just e.g. a 5s timeout max on the regular NFS umount)? Perhaps this isn't possible in the umount loop - or at least not possible cleanly... Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
