Re: [dev] Announcing sinit - the suckless init

From: sin <>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:03:03 +0000

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:40:22PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:54:44PM +0000, sin wrote:
> > Hm yes, you are right, the FIFO code never reaps children. We could
> > probably use the double fork trick + killing the parent to force it to
> > be reaped by the original process (the parent of the FIFO code).
> Double forking would take care of the spawned process. But you'd still be
> forced to boot with the file system mounted read-write. I don't know if
> that's the way to go. I think Arch wants you to boot with a read-writable
> root fs nowadays, but I don't know what the benefit should be. Even more
> so since you need to remount it read-only during system initialisation
> anyway before checking it.

I've fixed the issues you mentioned except the case when rootfs is mounted
as ro.

How would you tackle that?

I am considering setting up a SIGHUP handler in init and then sending that
signal at the end of the boot process when we are basically ready.

What do you think?

Received on Fri Feb 07 2014 - 13:03:03 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 07 2014 - 13:12:05 CET