Am 24.01.2014 18:43, schrieb Lennart Poettering: > On Fri, 24.01.14 17:10, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote: > >> >> 'Twas brillig, and Tom Horsley at 24/01/14 15:44 did gyre and gimble: >>>> However, something like that can never be the default, we need to give >>>> services the chance to shut down cleanly and in the right order. >>> >>> I didn't ask for any change to any default, I just asked for >>> users to be able to make the shutdown process proceed when >>> they have more information than systemd has about the chances >>> of success of some random stop job. >>> >>> Without that, what you *will* get is people pulling the >>> power plug which has a vastly greater chance of screwing up >>> the system than not waiting for a single stop job. >> >> Perhaps just displaying the timeout would be useful here. > > We do that. Michal's "eye of sauron" animation is shown as soon as > something blocks too long, and the name of the unit we are waiting for > is shown.
but there is nothing saying how long the timeout remains "displaying the timeout" means a value in seconds
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
