Hello,
Olaf Buddenhagen writes:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 12:34:09PM +0200, Justus Winter wrote:
>
>> I recommend against shutting down subhurds.
>
> This is a regression, though -- I'm pretty sure I used `halt` and/or
> `reboot` in subhurds in the past. (Sometimes it failed; but it never
> broke
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 12:34:09PM +0200, Justus Winter wrote:
> I recommend against shutting down subhurds.
This is a regression, though -- I'm pretty sure I used `halt` and/or
`reboot` in subhurds in the past. (Sometimes it failed; but it never
broke my main instance IIRC...)
-antrik-
Hey :)
"Brent W. Baccala" writes:
> Our current setup is that PID 5 (ext2fs) runs first, then starts PID 2
> (startup), which starts PID 1 (init). Weird. The cleanest solution, of
> course, would be to have proc actually respect these parenting
> relationships, then SIGCHLD and waitpid() would
Hello,
Brent W. Baccala, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:35:07 -1000, wrote:
> Also, after fixing bug #1, this screws up startup's attempt to start a new
> shell if the old one dies.
Note that even on success, "try" is incremented, i.e. /bin/shd is tried
instead of the shell.
> Maybe startup shouldn't
Aloha -
While testing the exec server, I setup a very minimalist subhurd using just
the most essential files, as opposed to copying the entire filesystem, and
uncovered a number of bugs.
I've refined the process into a shell script (attached) which creates the
subhurd on a ramdisk and then boots
