On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Mark Lord <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11-03-03 09:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ken Sumrall <ksumrall@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Writing a single byte to /proc/sysrq-trigger is an asynchronous >>> operation, with no obvious way to be informed that it has completed >>> the remount. >> >> Right you are. That's something of a misfeature, but it comes from the >> way sysrq works: obviously the "real" sysrq thing is about keyboard >> input, so all the sysrq stuff has to be async. >> >> The fact that that async nature then ends up also affecting the >> /proc/sysrq-trigger case (which _could_ be synchronous) is a bit sad >> in this case. > > Agreed. > > I have the echo s/u to sysrq-trigger (plus a 2-sec sleep ala MS-Win) > on my Ubuntu systems here, because their shutdown "sequence" > is racy and buggy, and frequently powers off the box with the > rootfs still mounted rw otherwise. > > And don't get me started about the races on system startup > -- "upstart" is an abomination, or at least the Ubuntu use of it is. > Ubuntu doesn't use Upstart on shutdown, it uses the plain-old sysv init scripts. Oddly enough I don't see any bugs filed by you about startup issues? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Ubuntu is perfect here - but I'm not aware of any races that are Upstart's fault. If there are, please file bugs! How else am I to fix them if I don't know about them? Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
