we want to do a bitwise shift, not a greater-than comparision
---
src/unit-name.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/unit-name.c b/src/unit-name.c
index 2e2948a..868d13e 100644
--- a/src/unit-name.c
+++ b/src/unit-name.c
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static char* d
As I didn't get any comments on my last mail, I'm trying again, now
with a patch attached :-D
I don't know if this patch is correct or if there is any reason that
break is missing, but applying it fixes an assertion fail for me.
systemd hits the assertion in the default branch of the switch when
1;2591;0cOn Fri, 01.10.10 07:11, Andrey Borzenkov ([email protected]) wrote:
> > - Call shutdown
> > If one step fail, shutdown will be aborted
> May we have them as three different units, please?
> - killall
> - umountall
> - shutdown
I don't think we want that, as Gustavo already pointed out.
On Fri, 01.10.10 21:01, Andrey Borzenkov ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:41:24 +0200 письмо от Lennart Poettering
> :
>
> > In short: I don't think this is a problem and we already have all the
> > right hooks to get rid of the mount points and services correctly and
> > clean
On Fri, 01.10.10 14:02, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
wrote:
> do we have a consensus over:
> - handling of devicemapper?
needed.
> - umount loop? shouldn't be required...
needed.
> - waitpid() after SIGKILL
needed.
> - is SIGSTOP -> SIGXYZ -> SIGCONT re
On Fri, 01.10.10 11:37, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
wrote:
> > If you do this then it is probably wise to make sure that the SIGTERM is
> > delivered for all processes at the same time and not one after the
> > other, hence it is recommended to use kill(-1, SIGSTOP) before
2010/10/1 Lennart Poettering :
> On Fri, 01.10.10 18:16, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>>
>> 2010/10/1 Fabiano Fidêncio :
>> > About fuse, Which is the problem in try to umount using umount2?
>>
>> I'm not an expert regarding fuse, but say I have a partition mounted
>> using ntfs-3g.
>>
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 01.10.10 13:53, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
> wrote:
>
>> > As mentioned, Fabianos code is intended as last resort. The proper order
>> > in which to shut down stuff should be ensured with with the usual
>>
Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:41:24 +0200 письмо от Lennart Poettering
:
> In short: I don't think this is a problem and we already have all the
> right hooks to get rid of the mount points and services correctly and
> cleanly.
Hmmm... On my system home.mount and tmp.mount always fail
on shutdown (I was l
On Fri, 01.10.10 13:53, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
wrote:
> > As mentioned, Fabianos code is intended as last resort. The proper order
> > in which to shut down stuff should be ensured with with the usual
> > brefore/after dependencies.
>
> yes!
>
> Just one thing: do we
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 01.10.10 18:16, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>>
>> 2010/10/1 Fabiano Fidêncio :
>> > About fuse, Which is the problem in try to umount using umount2?
>>
>> I'm not an expert regarding fuse, but say I have a partition
On Fri, 01.10.10 18:16, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> 2010/10/1 Fabiano Fidêncio :
> > About fuse, Which is the problem in try to umount using umount2?
>
> I'm not an expert regarding fuse, but say I have a partition mounted
> using ntfs-3g.
> If I kill the ntfs-3g process, the mou
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 01.10.10 11:44, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 01.10.10 02:28, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
>
On Fri, 01.10.10 16:50, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
> > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
> >>> From: Fabiano Fidencio
> >>>
> >>> This functions are working as follows:
> >>> -
On Fri, 01.10.10 16:36, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
> > From: Fabiano Fidencio
> >
> > This functions are working as follows:
> > - Send a SIGTERM to all process
> > - Send a SIGKILL to all process
> > - Try to umount all mount points
On Fri, 01.10.10 11:44, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 01.10.10 02:28, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +++ b/src/target.c
> >> @@ -172,6 +172,14 @@ sta
2010/10/1 Fabiano Fidêncio :
> About fuse, Which is the problem in try to umount using umount2?
I'm not an expert regarding fuse, but say I have a partition mounted
using ntfs-3g.
If I kill the ntfs-3g process, the mount will go away.
During your "kill" stage, the order of processes being killed i
2010/10/1 Michael Biebl :
> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
>> From: Fabiano Fidencio
>>
>> This functions are working as follows:
>> - Send a SIGTERM to all process
>> - Send a SIGKILL to all process
>> - Try to umount all mount points
>> - Try to remount read-only all mount poin
Fabiano Fidêncio ([email protected]) said:
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
> >
> > Say I have an NFS and/or fuse mount in /etc/fstab.
> > Which unit file you are talking about should be dealing with
> > unmounting this nfs mount?
>
> NFS is being umounted. I'm passing MNT
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
From: Fabiano Fidencio
This functions are working as follows:
- Send a SIGTERM to
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
From: Fabiano Fidencio
This functions are working as follows:
- Send a SIGTERM to
2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
>>> From: Fabiano Fidencio
>>>
>>> This functions are working as follows:
>>> - Send a SIGTERM to all process
>>> - Send a SIGKILL to all process
>>> - Try
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 01.10.10 02:28, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
> wrote:
>
>> +++ b/src/target.c
>> @@ -172,6 +172,14 @@ static int target_start(Unit *u) {
>> assert(t->state == TARGET_DEAD);
>>
>> target_se
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
>> From: Fabiano Fidencio
>>
>> This functions are working as follows:
>> - Send a SIGTERM to all process
>> - Send a SIGKILL to all process
>> - Try to umount all mount points
>> - Try to rem
I'm replying to this as couple of the bad ideas were my fault :-)
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 01.10.10 02:28, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
> wrote:
>
>> From: Fabiano Fidencio
>>
>> This functions are working as follows:
>> - S
2010/10/1 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
> From: Fabiano Fidencio
>
> This functions are working as follows:
> - Send a SIGTERM to all process
> - Send a SIGKILL to all process
> - Try to umount all mount points
> - Try to remount read-only all mount points that can't
> be umounted
Wha
On Fri, 01.10.10 02:28, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
wrote:
> +++ b/src/target.c
> @@ -172,6 +172,14 @@ static int target_start(Unit *u) {
> assert(t->state == TARGET_DEAD);
>
> target_set_state(t, TARGET_ACTIVE);
> +
> +if (unit_has_name(u, SPECI
On Fri, 01.10.10 02:28, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri ([email protected])
wrote:
> From: Fabiano Fidencio
>
> This functions are working as follows:
> - Send a SIGTERM to all process
> - Send a SIGKILL to all process
> - Try to umount all mount points
> - Try to remount read-on
28 matches
Mail list logo
