changes in halt.c

walter harms wharms at bfs.de
Sat Nov 1 20:11:19 UTC 2008


i assume the idea was to have a package of init/reboot/halt.
The original autor simply dismissed the idea someone could use a external init
and use busybox reboot/halt :). it was removed by my request.


re,
 wh


Jon Nalley schrieb:
> I see what you mean.  I didn't look too closely before since it was
> working for me in 1.11.3 (I was just looking to see what changed).  It
> looks like my init is not handling the SIGTERM.  I agree that in the
> general case an instantaneous reboot is probably not the right thing
> to do.
> 
> Any idea why ENABLE_INIT was in there in the first place?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon Nalley
> 
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Denys Vlasenko
> <vda.linux at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday 31 October 2008 19:19, Jon Nalley wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> After upgrading to 1.12.1 I noticed that the 'reboot' command no
>>> longer worked for me (nothing happened when running reboot).  I should
>>> note that I am *not* using 'init' from busybox.  I looked at the diff
>>> of halt.c between 1.11.3 and 1.12.1 and noticed the following change
>>> that breaks in my use case:
>>>
>>> -        if (ENABLE_INIT && !(flags & 4)) {
>>> +        rc = 1;
>>> +        if (!(flags & 4)) { /* no -f */
>>>
>>> Note that since the check for "ENABLE_INIT" has been removed the code
>>> seems to always assume that init is busybox's init.
>>>
>>> After adding "ENABLE_INIT" back into the if() things work as expected.
>> You mean, no your reboot (without -f)
>> just instantaneously reboots your machine.
>>
>> Don't you think that may be a very unpleasant surprise for some users?
>> --
>> vda
>>
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
> 
> 
> 



More information about the busybox mailing list