Le 19/02/2016 00:19, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn<k...@in2p3.fr> writes:
[...]
>>That's a theoretical argument I agree with: I think the server/ service
>>management code shouldn't be part of init especially since it's
>>virtually unused but that's really a tiny addition to the process
>>starting code which more-or-less has to exist, anyway.
>
> Actually pid1 only needs to start one process, the real init, and
>wait the zombies. The real init then takes care of mounts and starts
>the services or starts a supervisor to do it. This would seriously
>shrink pid1.
init doesn't mount anything, anyway. On 'sysinit', it runs
/etc/init.d/rcS which - in turn - executes the scripts in/ linked into
/etc/rcS.d in the order of their names (the sysinit command can be
changed via /etc/inittab).
Yes, you are right, I've abusively shortened the chain.
It also usually doesn't start anything except
gettys despite it could manage abitrary processes. The reason for it
starting gettys is mainly that it contains the console-handling code
which could be moved out of it. In case a runlevel change request is
received, it executes /etc/init.d/rc with the new run-level as argument
(also configurable, implements 'the runlevel stuff'). Lastly, it handles
a few special-case control requests, UPS notifications and C-A-D, also
by executing a command which can be configured via inittab.
Dennys abandons the concept of runlevel for a more fine-grained
control.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
