[systemd-devel] [PATCH 1/4] Adding halt binary to shutdown the system

[Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri]

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Lennart Poettering
<lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 01.10.10 18:16, Michael Biebl (mbiebl at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> 2010/10/1 Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio at profusion.mobi>:
>> > 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 is
>> random, I guess.
>> So there still might be processes accessing that ntfs partition.
>>
>> It would definitely be nicer, if you kill all running processes
>> (besides the ntfs-3g process), and then unmount the NTFS partition.
>> The nfs case is similar.
>> killall5 (at least in Debian) has an -o flag [1], and e.g. portmap or
>> ntfs-3g use that mechanism to not be killed by the killall script.
>>
>> As I already wrote for the LVM/mdadm/cryptsetup case, imo we need a
>> mechanism how those tools can hook into the shutdown process.
>> Maybe having a single binary doing all steps in on go does not offer
>> the necessary flexibility.
>
> 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 still need a killall.service? Or systemd will
just handle it automatically?

-- 
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
http://profusion.mobi embedded systems
--------------------------------------
MSN: barbieri at gmail.com
Skype: gsbarbieri
Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202