On 2010-12-15 14:36, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >> <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.
I'm not thinking you're nit-picking at all. Like I said I'm fine with either name. >>>> 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. OK. I'll give it another 24 hours then for others to comment, and then push it. Thanks! Cheers, Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
