On Tue, 24.08.10 20:14, Matt McCutchen (matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Tue, 24.08.10 16:38, Bill Nottingham (notting@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > Lennart Poettering (mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > > > - init shall support a mechanism to re-exec itself to not cause dirty > > > > > inodes on shutdown; initscripts will use this method on shutdown. > > > > > > > > This is bad. While we support this just fine I think it is a really bad > > > > idea to reexec init at shutdown. What's the point of this, can you elaborate on > > > > this? This smells to me as a workaround for brokeness in older init > > > > systems, and I don't see a reason why reexecing itself would be > > > > necessary for systemd. > > > > > > If the libraries or binaries used by systemd are replaced during runtime, > > > and it is not re-executed on shutdown, the filesystem will have busy inodes > > > on shutdown. (If you'd like to take the filesystem semantics up with the > > > kernel, feel free to tilt at that windmill.) > > > > Hmm, so this is about files that are deleted but still mapped by init, > > and which can only be deleted when init stops referencing them, but that > > is required to remount the fs r/o? Did I get this right? > > Yes, that's right. > > > I am not really convinced that reexecing is the right answer for this > > problem. But well, since this already works anyway I guess this doesn't > > really matter too much. > > Indeed, it's a hack, but there's no better option in sight, so I don't > see the point in complaining. Well, what me still puzzles is this: the reexec is done asynchronously, via signals. Shouldn't this be done synchronously at least to make sure the daemon really is reexec'ed when we try to remount r/o? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
