On 01/21/2010 06:14 PM, Ales Kozumplik wrote: > On 01/21/2010 05:23 PM, Steffen Maier wrote: >> On 01/21/2010 04:33 PM, Ales Kozumplik wrote: >>> On 01/21/2010 04:26 PM, Ales Kozumplik wrote: >>>> dcantrell's recent change to the shutdown mechanism exposed a >>>> situation when >>>> shutdown is correctly handled but the init's exit handler still gets >>>> called and >>>> dumps its callstack, that's not desirable because (in case of an >>>> exception in >>>> python code for example) part of the useful information on the >>>> screen is >>>> scrolled out of view. >>>> --- >>> >>> Note that there still will be kernel panic displayed and the machine >>> won't react on ctrl-alt-del (VMWare). An endless sleepy loop could be a >>> way out perhaps? >> >> Right, the loop is what used to be there. I kind of liked it but it >> requires a separation of the two cases: loader returning with error vs. >> s390 needing init to halt. If nobody has any real need for waiting at >> this point any longer, we could alternatively call performReboot for all >> cases of rebootAction, even for HALT. >> (See also >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2010-January/msg00317.html) > I'm not an shutdown expert, but we don't want to call performReboot in > the HALT case, that would make it the same as POWEROFF: not good because > we wouldn't be able to see the final output (in the frequent case of > loader SIGSEGV for example), as you mentioned in the second thread. The >From the old times, I thought a halt without poweroff is possible. At least that was the case before APM and ACPI came into play. Calling "halt" or "shutdown -H" should explicitly enforce a halt without poweroff (whereas a "shutdown -h" could also poweroff is supported by the system). > loop could be one option, possibly with conditional code for S390 -- > what do you think David? Sounds good to me. > BTW Steffen, how does one halt the Linux kernel? According to "man 2 reboot", this would halt as opposed to poweroff a system: LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT (RB_HALT_SYSTEM, 0xcdef0123; since 1.1.76). The message ‘System halted.’ is printed, and the system is halted. Control is given to the ROM monitor, if there is one. If not preceded by a sync(2), data will be lost. I haven't tested this but I suppose the performReboot could be extended as follows and then called dependently for s390 (compile time ifdef or maybe even cleaner: a new -H option for the standalone shutdown binary and passing this flag by means of a compile unit global static variable to shutDown so we don't have to change its interface and thus callers in init.c. For the latter approach we would change "shutdown" to "shutdown -H" in linuxrc.s390 to explicitly trigger a non-interactive halt.) > static void performReboot(reboot_action rebootAction) { > if (rebootAction == POWEROFF) { > printf("powering off system\n"); > sleep(2); > reboot(RB_POWER_OFF); > } else if (rebootAction == REBOOT) { > printf("rebooting system\n"); > sleep(2); > > #if USE_MINILIBC > reboot(0xfee1dead, 672274793, 0x1234567); > #else > reboot(RB_AUTOBOOT); > #endif > } else if (rebootAction == HALT) { printf("halting system\n"); sleep(2); reboot(RB_HALT_SYSTEM); } > } (From a style point of view, a switch case construct would be nicer than the else if cascade.) Steffen Linux on System z Development IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
