Re: runit SIGPWR support

From: Jeff <sysinit_at_yandex.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 18:31:51 +0100

18.02.2020, 10:39, "Laurent Bercot" <ska-supervision_at_skarnet.org>:
> you're telling me that s6-svscan needs to understand SIGPWR in case the
> kernel wants to signal a power failure, you actually have a good point,
> and yes, I should implement SIGPWR support when this signal exists.

BTW:

have you ever used s6 as process #1 on any other platform than Linux ?
i bet you have not even tried to do so on any of the BSDs.
so why are you sticking to all this "POSIX-correctness" ?
adding a few lines of code to support a specific platform (linux or any other
unix) looks not like a big problem to me.
sticking to POSIX features in the default case is a good way to
achieve portability, that's right.
but avoiding platform specific advantages at all costs seems
pretty strange to me.

solaris, AIX and even OS X are all POSIX platforms, hence it
would be interesting to see if s6 will work out of the box there
(as process #1; handling SIGPWR may be a requirement here).
i am sure it will since unlike systemd it is portable.

those platforms cannot be "POSIX-correct" if not.
hence their kernels should be made "POSIX-correct" to run the
"POSIX-correct" s6 unchanged as process #1.

so who has to adapt, s6 or those kernels ?
Received on Sun Feb 23 2020 - 17:31:51 UTC