On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 01:40:29PM +0100, Florian Haas wrote: > On 2010-12-15 13:35, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:58:44AM +0100, Florian Haas wrote: > >> # HG changeset patch > >> # User Florian Haas <[email protected]> > >> # Date 1292402996 -3600 > >> # Node ID 8459a4918ad86c93962b8b59dd14d380c1e48eed > >> # Parent 2b64174a3b9c8404391d5de27b800edb25c1833a > >> Medium: .ocf-shellfuncs: add ocf_test_pid convenience function > > > > Perhaps the name doesn't fit: you test if the process exists, so > > shouldn't it be ocf_test_process? When I saw the subject line, I > > thought that this would be something about PID files. > > <bikeshed> > Well we _could_ name it ocf_test_process_by_pid, but that seems a bit > verbose. ocf_test_pid, ocf_test_process ... I really don't mind, > although to me ocf_test_pid does sound a wee bit more natural.</bikeshed>
I find names important. You too I think. Sorry that you find this nitpicking. > >> Add an OCF-style function, ocf_test_pid(), to test for a running > >> process by PID. This function employs the following logic: > >> > >> * Send the process a 0 signal. > > > > Strictly speaking, 0 is not a signal, but instruction to check if > > the calling process can send a signal to the specified process. > > Fair enough; I can change the commit message. > > So you consider the patch sound as far as the logic is concerned? Yes, otherwise I would've commented more. Dejan > Florian > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
