On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:20:57PM +0000, Paul Sladen wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:29:47AM +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > adds a redundant "reboot" argument > > Herbert, I suggest you send a patch to Linus Torvalds replacing: > sys_reboot()
actually something similar was suggested by the parisc maintainer, who suggested to use separate syscalls instead of the syscall switch, but there _is_ something you clearly miss ... > with six new system calls: > sys_restart() > sys_halt() > sys_poweroff() > sys_cad_on() > sys_cad_off() > sys_restart() we had a long discussion on irc, and agreed on the current interface (don't you remember?) so why now trying to change that interface again? > as your interface design around here is clearly superior (!) to what > everyone else is telling you is already the case. I would understand if you would argue, that separate tools must be triggered by different syscalls/states like a vsreboot, vshelp, vswossname, but why do you think that calling vshelper with ... "reboot restart" instead of "restart" "reboot halt" instead of "halt" "reboot poweroff" instead of "poweroff" ... superior to the other? > > feel free to branch and/or provide vshelper kernel patches ... > > Mark just provided patches. Are *you* going to take them? no. best, Herbert > -Paul > -- > Why do I keep banging my head against brick walls? London, GB > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
