Re: [PATCH] kill(-1,sig)

[Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca>]

vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua writes:
> On Monday 17 December 2001 05:01, Richard Gooch wrote:
> >   Hi, all. To followup on the change in 2.5.1 which sends a signal to
> > the signalling process when send_pid==-1, I have a definate case where
> > the new behaviour is highly undesirable, and I would say broken.
> >
> > shutdown(8) from util-linux (*not* the version that comes with the
> > bloated monstrosity known as SysVInit) uses the sequence:
> 
> Hi Richard, I'm using your new init and happy with it (thanks!).
> I am very willing to discuss other side of a coin (i.e. shutdown sequence),
> let's do it off the list.
> 
> > 	kill (-1, SIGTERM);
> > 	sleep (2);
> > 	kill (-1, SIGKILL);
> >
> > to ensure that all processes not stuck in 'D' state are killed.
> >
> > With the new behaviour, shutdown(8) ends up killing itself. This is no
> > good, because the shutdown process doesn't complete (i.e. unmounting
> > of filesystems, calling sync(2) and good stuff like that).
> 
> I don't use your shutdown, I found it possible to spawn a shell
> script in a new process group and use killall5 to term/kill
> everything except this process group. It works. (But yesterday I saw
> fsck again... something did not get umounted?) I can mail my scripts
> to you for a little discussion. Mail me.

You're welcome to use killall to do this, but I don't think you should
*have to*. What if /proc isn't mounted? But more importantly, I don't
think shutdown(8) should be broken by such a change.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current:   rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca