> On 02 Aug 2016, at 21:56, Torsten Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
>>> On 31 Jul 2016, at 22:36, Torstem Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 29.07.2016 um 20:37 schrieb larsxschnei...@gmail.com:
>>>> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com>
>>>> packet_flush() would die in case of a write error even though for some
>>>> an error would be acceptable.
>>> What happens if there is a write error ?
>>> Basically the protocol is out of synch.
>>> Lenght information is mixed up with payload, or the other way
>>> It may be, that the consequences of a write error are acceptable,
>>> because a filter is allowed to fail.
>>> What is not acceptable is a "broken" protocol.
>>> The consequence schould be to close the fd and tear down all
>>> resources. connected to it.
>>> In our case to terminate the external filter daemon in some way,
>>> and to never use this instance again.
>> Correct! That is exactly what is happening in kill_protocol2_filter()
> Wait a second.
> Is kill the same as shutdown ?
> I would expect that
No, kill is used if the filter behaved strangely or signaled an error.
"Shutdown" is a graceful shutdown. However, that might not be an ideal
name. See the bottom of my discussion with Peff here:
> The process terminates itself as soon as it detects EOF.
> As there is nothing more read.
> Then the next question: The combination of kill & protocol in kill_protocol(),
> what does it mean ?
I renamed that function to "kill_multi_file_filter". Initially I called
the multi file filter "protocol" (bad decision I know) and named the
> Is it more like a graceful shutdown_protocol() ?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html