On 05/01/2010 06:42 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:29:04 +0200, PyroPeter wrote:
Some months ago, the /etc/fancontrol syntax changed,
Please be specific. The syntax never changed, it was extended in
fully backwards compatible ways, this should never have caused
fancontrol to fail, unless you downgraded it.
At the 28th of February I had to add DEVPATH and DEVNAME settings to my
config file.
Of cause this is my fault, because I manually wrote the config.
and fancontrol
exited right after startup, but the init script stated success.
Currently there is no reliable way for a init script to check if
fancontrol started up properly.
Running it using startproc should do the trick. That's what openSUSE
does.
After reading the manpage online, I get the impression that startproc
just has the advantage of checking for an already running daemon before
starting it. But I will take a look at a SUSE initscript.
Besides that, I do not get how you should check if fancontrol started up
properly.
The only way I could imagine is: you run fancontrol, wait some seconds
and then check for the pid-file. I won't have to tell anyone how dirty
that is.
As fancontrol is a deamon preventing hardware damage, reliability should
be of first priority.
This is incorrect. fancontrol is a daemon _causing_ hardware damage, if
anything. The initial state of your system should be safe, so
fancontrol not starting should never be a safety issue.
Not for me. My mainboard has some kind of broken fan control that always
sets a very low speed, which makes it acoustically indistinguishable
from fancontrol but fails at high CPU loads. But that is not a
fancontrol issue at the first point.
I would suggest adding a argument to fancontrol that makes it start up,
check config syntax and write permissions, and than fork to the
background, or return a positive exit code.
I wrote a kind of proof of concept that simply uses the existing
bash-script and "forks" by reexecuting itself in the background:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
diff -ru lm_sensors-3.1.2-1/usr/sbin/fancontrol
lm_sensors-3.1.2-1_pyropeter/usr/sbin/fancontrol
--- lm_sensors-3.1.2-1/usr/sbin/fancontrol 2010-02-03
03:45:15.000000000 +0100
+++ lm_sensors-3.1.2-1_pyropeter/usr/sbin/fancontrol 2010-03-07
01:37:09.000000000 +0100
@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
#
# Version 0.70
#
-# Usage: fancontrol [CONFIGFILE]
+# Usage: fancontrol [-D] [CONFIGFILE]
+#
+# (-D causes fancontrol to 'fork' to the background after some tests)
#
# Dependencies:
# bash, egrep, sed, cut, sleep, readlink, lm_sensors :)
@@ -43,6 +45,12 @@
#DEBUG=1
MAX=255
+DAEMON=0
+if [ "$1" = "-D" ]; then
+ DAEMON=1
+ shift
+fi
+
declare -i pwmval
function LoadConfig {
@@ -303,7 +311,6 @@
echo "File $PIDFILE exists, is fancontrol already running?"
exit 1
fi
-echo $$> "$PIDFILE"
# $1 = pwm file name
function pwmdisable()
@@ -475,6 +482,14 @@
let fcvcount=$fcvcount+1
done
+if [ "$DAEMON" -gt 0 ]; then
+ echo "Forking..."
+ $0 $*&> /dev/null&
+ exit 0
+fi
+
+echo $$> "$PIDFILE"
+
echo 'Starting automatic fan control...'
# main loop calling the main function at specified intervals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not subscribed to this mailing list, so you need to CC me.
This means that the checks will be done twice.
There could be a second argument that skips the tests. But I don't think
parsing a 400B file two time is going to harm.
And if the checks are
somehow incomplete, fancontrol may still fail despite the fork being
successful, so it is unreliable by design.
What do you mean by "somehow incomplete"?
I can't imagine a case where the old behavior is more reliable than the
one I supposed, unless there are bugs in the implementation.
(Btw. I just noticed the fork itself could break in some cases, so it
needs an additional if-clause :-P)
If startproc works for you, you should use it.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
