[systemd-devel] 'systemctl poweroff' no longer shuts down system -- instead, reboots ?

Lennart Poettering lennart at poettering.net
Tue Dec 2 18:43:15 PST 2014


On Wed, 03.12.14 03:13, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek at in.waw.pl) wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 02:21:45AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Thu, 13.11.14 11:24, grantksupport at operamail.com (grantksupport at operamail.com) wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014, at 08:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > On the upstream ML we usually discuss only more recent problems, which
> > > > are exposed upstream. Hence, please contact the Suse folks for more
> > > > help on the issue, or check if a current systemd version fails.
> > > 
> > > Already done, and just fyi -- appears now to be fixed:
> > > 
> > > @ https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=903560#c48
> > > 
> > > rpm -q --changelog systemd
> > > 	* Thu Nov 13 2014 werner at suse.de
> > > 	- Change patch 0001-add-hdflush-for-reboot-or-hddown-for-poweroff.patch
> > > 	  to skip hdflush as well as hddown but only use halt as fallback
> > > 	  for poweroff as well as synch in systemctl before any reboot command
> > > 	  (compare with commit 4a3ad39957399c4a30fc472a804e72907ecaa4f9)
> > > 
> > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/Base:System/systemd/0001-add-hdflush-for-reboot-or-hddown-for-poweroff.patch?expand=1
> > > 
> > > shutdown now shuts down correctly.
> > 
> > I cannot make any sense out of that commit I must say. I really wish
> > suse would discuss this with us upstream, if there's a bug to fix
> > upstream...
>
> It seems that they add reboot(RB_HALT_SYSTEM) as a fallback to reboot(RB_POWER_OFF).
> I'd consider this a workaround for a bug in firmware or hardware.
> I seems like it shouldn't hurt, so maybe let's take this part?

Well, if RB_POWER_OFF doesn't work, we should let the kernel folks
figure this out. systemd is not the place to work around hardware
bugs.

> The other thing is adding an additional sync. I think you added one
> in the meanwhile.

An "additional" one? Why that?

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat


More information about the systemd-devel mailing list