On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:11:38PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 03:58:13PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:08:56PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:34:18PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > ... > > > > If a process inside a container closes and then immediately reopens a > > > > vtty, it does not expect to get -EIO simply because it is advancing too > > > > fast. > > > > > > How it that? I mean, application (getty and such) always care about eio > > > and such things. > > > > No. If tty_open() returns -EIO mingetty dies: > > > > : /sbin/mingetty[845]: console: cannot open tty: Input/output error > > > > It will be respawned in a moment though, but it is ugly. > > It doesnt matter how some particular program (getty or whatever) > reacts on tty open error. By "care" I mean to either plain exit > and rely on service to be restarted, or a program may sleep sometime > and try again. What I mean is that this is absolutely valid to > obtain -eio here. Anyway this should be addressed in a new version > of a patch. Please give it a glance once time permit.
OK, I see now. Open-vs-close race is perfectly normal by design and we don't need to handle them. This simplifies things a lot. Thanks for pointing this out. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
