mm14424 at opensolaris:~$ pfexec reboot -f dryrun
reboot: not all drivers have implemented quiesce(9E)
mm14424 at opensolaris:~$

It would be more customer/system admin  friendly to state something
like "Fast reboot not supported on this machine" rather
than above message which assumes some knowledge
of device drivers and driver entry points.

Margot


Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On 02/ 3/10 11:12 AM, Sherry Moore wrote:
>> Garrett,
>>
>> It was by your request during PSARC review that "reboot -f dryrun" to
>> be a project private interface and therefore not to be documented in
>> the man pages.
>>    
>
> Hmm.. ok.  I don't remember rightly why I would have requested that, 
> but I presume I had a reason for it at the time.
>
> Perhaps its a good time to revisit that decision, since there seems to 
> be some desire to have the ability to query this.
>
>     - Garrett
>
>> Sherry
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:32:37AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>   
>>> On 02/ 3/10 09:59 AM, Calum Mackay wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On 03/02/10 17:38, chris kiick wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>>>>> How do I tell if my system has the "specific capabilities"
>>>>>>>> required for
>>>>>>>> fast reboot? Is there a command which can be run, or a
>>>>>>>> particular line in
>>>>>>>> prtconf, prtdiag or the like which tells me whether the
>>>>>>>> system is capable
>>>>>>>> of fast reboot?
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>> reboot -f dryrun shows whether your system is capable at all.
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>   Lovely. Is that documented anywhere? I don't see it in the
>>>>>> man page for
>>>>>>   reboot(1M). Seems like an ideal extension to the text you
>>>>>> proposed along the
>>>>>>   lines of "To see if your system is capable of fast reboot,
>>>>>> run reboot -f
>>>>>>   dryrun".
>>>>>>            
>>>>> dryrun only works on x86.
>>>>>          
>>>> I don't see it mentioned in reboot(1) on an x86 system either.
>>>>        
>>> Its "undocumented", and IIRC, was not formally ARC'd as an interface.
>>>
>>>      - Garrett
>>>     
>>>> cheers,
>>>> calum.
>>>>        
>>    
>

Reply via email to