Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Why do I need a "sfcb hash table mutex lock"?
Message-ID: <1991Jan3.202230.12597@alphalpha.com>
Date: 3 Jan 91 20:22:30 GMT
References: <9012280914.AA03633@duc220.uni-duisburg.de> <1990Dec30.194240.17416@alphalpha.com> <4ef7cdb8.1bc5b@pisa.ifs.umich.edu>
Organization: asi
Lines: 16

In article <4ef7cdb8.1bc5b@pisa.ifs.umich.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes:
>I used to have a daemon that would check the sfcb lock every minute, and if
>it found the lock stuck (held and ec not advancing) it would shut down the
>node.  This won't work any more because reboot() no longer does a shutdown,
>it signals process 1 to do the shutdown (why was this changed?).

You might try calling reboot(RB_AUTOBOOT).  Unless that was changed too.

-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.		|	motif-request@alfalfa.com
nazgul@alfalfa.com		|-----------------------------------
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)	|	Proline BBS: 617/641-3722

I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.