On Sunday 08 February 2009, Udo Richter wrote: > On 08.02.2009 10:19, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > On Saturday 07 February 2009, Udo Richter wrote: > >> Unfortunately it's not that easy. Currently, VDR backgrounds the call to > >> the shutdown script, and detaches the shutdown script from the VDR > >> process. Only because of that, the script can 'survive' the kill of VDR, > > > > Why is that even necessary? Shutdown scripts could selectively > > background+detach things that need to survive killing of VDR and the > > script themselves, if any. > > Detaching as a script isn't that easy, the reason for these ugly echo > "..." | at now workarounds. There are other alternatives to choose from if one for some reason can't stomach the "at" approach. > >> and only because of that the script can display messages via SVDRP. > > > > Hmm, why wouldn't a non-background, non-detached script called by VDR be > > able to do that? > > The main VDR thread would have to wait for the return, and SVDRP won't > be handled until then. SVDRP connections from the script would timeout. > You can see that if you use SVDRP commands from commands.conf without > explicitly backgrounding. That sounds like a bug to me, irrespective of this discussion. > The question for VDR is: If we > don't shut down, when should VDR check again, or how does VDR know that > the background job is done? Why would VDR check or care in the first place? > An error level return is quite limited here. Sure, but quite a bit better than what's currently sanely doable. _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
