svn commit: r366626 - head/sbin/reboot

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 09:12:43AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> ...
> There were cases that were discussed when the feature went in that
> required it to be removed in some failure modes for full functionality.
> I don't recall if they were in the rc thread or somewhere else.

You mean, literally delete the file, that is, nextboot_enable="NO" can
not be enough?

> And honestly, nextboot.conf is special in so many ways. We have no
> unlink in the loader for UFS and no write for ZFS or MSDOS. In those

What's the problem with in-place overwrite in the FAT case?

> cases, the rm from rc is what you want

I still don't understand how could rm be better than graceful disabling
alternative configuration with nextboot_enable="NO".  I most certainly
do *not* like when my custom config files are being removed, especially
silently.  When I see nextboot_enable="NO"<space> I know that the file
had been processed, and processed by the machine, not me (since I would
never add trailing space).  When I don't see the file, I'd be questioning
myself if I've ever added it here, or maybe I put in the wrong location.

> I'm not likely to remove it, but if UFS grows unlink in the future,
> this man page will need to change.

Just because it's easier to implemented unlink for UFS then (over)write
for ZFS?

> Then again, all the loser [loader?] man pages need a complete rewrite,
> or close to it.

Personally I find them quite useful, except when they contradict the
reality (like this time).  In these cases, I'd fix them.

./danfe