2014/1/24 Colin Guthrie <gm...@colin.guthr.ie>: > '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.
Making the shutdown more verbose in such a situation would imho be a good idea, showing a countdown or something like that with a note for which service systemd is currently waiting to be shutdown. I completely agree with Tom here: In situations where on shutdown (or boot for that matter) the system blocks for longer then 30-60 secs and no feedback at all most people will simply assume the system got stuck and do power-reset. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
